Getting back into the race for critical minerals
Representatives from government, industry and academia gathered to discuss how the UK might make headway in the global race for critical materials.
'It’s a yesterday problem, not a today problem.' Thomas Kelly, Operations Director at magnet recycling firm Ionic Technologies, UK, neatly summed up the sense of urgency among speakers and delegates at the Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport Forum seminar, on ‘Next steps for UK critical minerals policy, supply and sector development’.
It was held ahead of the UK Government's recent release of its updated Critical Minerals Strategy. Time, speakers agreed, is not something the UK has on its side.
The global race to decarbonise has triggered an equally competitive race to secure the minerals that make this possible.
The likes of lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare-earths are in high demand as clean energy technologies scale up. The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects serious shortfalls by 2035 – copper supply may meet only 70% of demand, lithium 50% and cobalt 85%. While there is less concern about graphite and rare-earth supply quantity, these materials remain tightly concentrated in a handful of countries – notably China, which dominates processing and refining.
Structural investment is also an issue. Most mining projects run over budget and behind schedule. This, combined with a decade of market volatility, has driven away most specialist mining finance.
The UK is exposed. In 2024, the UK Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre (CMIC) expanded the national list of critical materials from 18 to 34, adding nickel, aluminium, germanium, iron and chromium. Copper remains under watch, and since fluorspar mining ceased in 2023, the UK is now 100% import-reliant.
The US has its game face on, with recent minerals deals with Ukraine, Australia, Thailand, Brazil and Japan, and publicly pronounced interest in Greenland’s resources. This follows the federal government’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which allocated large sums towards critical minerals supply.
Closer to home, the EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) came into force in May 2024, aiming to secure supply of these materials by expediting permitting for 'strategic projects', diversifying imports, monitoring supply chain risks and promoting circularity.
Aiming to rebuild resilience, the UK is backing domestic ventures such as Cornish Lithium and South Crofty tin, and pursuing trade deals with Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. It is also working with allies through the Minerals Security Partnership, comprising 14 countries and the EU, which aims to secure critical mineral supply chains.
However, the UK faces barriers in confidence, governance and sustainability. While it has launched some targeted initiatives through the Critical Minerals Taskforce and CMIC, it still lacks the EU’s legislative framework and policy certainty. As such, there was much speculation from speakers ahead of its release, as to how the updated Critical Minerals Strategy might put the UK back in the race.
Closing the gaps
Dr Gavin Mudd, Director at the CMIC, identified the UK’s lack of comprehensive geological and mineral by-product data as a barrier to enhancing domestic production.
Unlike nations such as Ireland, Canada and Australia, where government-funded surveys provide a clear map of potential deposits, the UK relies on legacy datasets that overlook key by-product opportunities, including indium, germanium and tellurium.
Mudd argued for long-term investment in a UK-wide geophysical mapping programme to underpin exploration beyond existing deposits. 'Such data could give investors greater certainty while identifying minerals co-located with existing operations, such as tin and lithium in Cornwall.'
Beyond domestic supply, the UK’s absence of midstream and refining capacity emerged as a central concern throughout the event. While countries such as China dominate global refining of lithium, nickel and cobalt, the UK remains heavily import-dependent, even for materials it could technically process domestically.
Mike Blakeney, Head of Government and Public Affairs at the Cobalt Institute, urged the UK to increase refining capacity. 'There is no economic reason why [the UK] cannot do it,' he argued, citing that Europe represents around 20% of global cobalt refining collectively, with Finland alone refining 10% of supply.
Dr Christian Marston, co-founder of Altilium – a company turning old electric vehicle (EV) batteries into a domestic source of critical minerals – said the UK can carve a niche as a 'clean midstream' provider, and that building recycling infrastructure is vital for the energy transition.
Currently, much of the UK’s black mass from EV batteries – the granular residue left after lithium-ion batteries are shredded during recycling – is exported for reprocessing overseas.
Marston stressed that international collaboration needs to be balanced with the requirement for local supply chains. He warned, 'We shouldn’t be exporting our critical minerals overseas. Ultimately, we buy back those materials at a premium.'
He asserted that while China controls 90% of the synthetic anode supply chain, every EV on UK roads is a source of urban ore. By building hydrometallurgical refining capability in the UK, critical minerals can be kept inside UK shores.
Altilium’s first commercial facility, currently in construction, will reportedly be capable of processing 24,000 EV batteries per year. Scaling will enable 150,000 batteries to be processed by 2030. However, this requires long-term capital and foundation investors experienced in scaling refineries. Marston insisted, 'You have to build the partnerships and the network to feed to the chemical refineries.'
A waiting game
With the IEA predicting global shortages within a decade, the UK must shorten its critical mineral project timelines to remain competitive.
'Planning and permitting is vital for the government to address,' said Kirsty Benham, Founder and CEO of the Critical Minerals Association. She pointed to lengthy timelines, along with limited decision-making power, capacity and experience within local authorities – compounded by unclear roles and responsibilities among decision-makers.
Alex Minhinick, partner at UK law firm Burges Salmon, outlined the complexity of the current planning regime, noting that operators must navigate multiple additional consents – including environmental permits, surface and sub-surface access agreements, and local highway impact regulations.
Instead, he proposed allowing critical minerals projects to opt in to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects framework, which would streamline the planning process by requiring a single consent from the Secretary of State.
Benefits of this route – already successfully adopted by Cornish Lithium’s Trelavour Lithium Project – include reduced delays, a clear decision-making framework and high consent rates.
Benham further noted that UK planning and permitting is lagging behind Europe. 'The CRMA has identified 47 strategic projects for streamlined planning and permitting and requirements for recycled materials,' she said, arguing for UK university spin-outs to navigate planning and permitting 'at pace – before our world-leading start-ups have to close while waiting for planning decisions'.
Financing the foundations
UK mining also faces a chronic funding gap, driven not only by geological factors but also by investor caution. Blakeney called for the government and the finance community to work together on a risk-sharing model that protects taxpayers while maximising private investment to get projects built and off the ground.
Catriona Bell, Director of Metals and Mining Transition Finance at Standard Chartered Bank, agreed that with support from government, banks 'have a huge role to play', particularly when project risk diminishes as more technical understanding and engineering realities come forward.
She further advocated for the government to address evolving regulatory environments, changes in taxes and export controls, and the need for downstream processing.
Through UK Export Finance (UKEF), the government is already de-risking projects for commercial banks by offering loan guarantees. Bell suggested it could also help build relationships between banks and industry experts, to bridge the knowledge gap that can skew risk perception among investors. Benham added that the National Wealth Fund, UKEF and Innovate UK are government strengths that can support funding for projects.
Blakeney urged that, in light of other countries using policy and financial strategies to incentivise critical raw materials, it’s time for the UK Government to follow suit. 'This is a market where politics is absolutely central to the success and failures of whole industries and ecosystems,' he advised.
'We’re all playing catch up on this, but I think the UK has three competitive advantages that no other jurisdiction globally has. We have globally leading levels of commodity expertise. We’ve got the financial firepower. And the UK has competitive manufacturing locations, especially in the north of England. With the support and benefits that we can give those companies, I think we can do a lot more as well.'
Doing the right thing
Environmental and social governance (ESG) no longer just means corporate responsibility. It is a geopolitical tool that, when embedded in finance and trade agreements, could dictate who sits at the front of the pack in the critical minerals race.
Mudd underlined this point. Beyond transparency and due diligence, 'a lot of these things come down to agreements', he said. At the heart of these agreements are standards, which are enforced through finance, between governments, and between companies and local communities. 'International agreements and standards are absolutely crucial, and we need to make sure we get those standards right,' he asserted.
Luke Balleny, Manager of Energy Minerals and Circularity at the World Resources Institute, underscored that responsible investment is a strength for the UK. He urged for mobilisation of 'responsible capital' via initiatives such as the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030, and through organisations such as Principles for Responsible Investment (see box-out below).
Investors often create barriers to sustainable mining – finds industry survey
A survey commissioned by the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030 finds that the large majority of mining sector respondents (81%) are clear that investor support is important, or very important, for the adoption of higher sustainability standards by their companies. But over half (53%) warn that investors can sometimes, or frequently, create barriers to this goal.When asked what miners would like to see from investors, an overwhelming majority ask for investor consensus on expectations when it comes to sustainability performance. They also want to see rewards for those with high sustainability standards – such as access to lower cost of capital.
One challenge highlighted is the ‘short termism’ that can work against companies seeking to introduce more sustainable practices. Perceived obstacles include prioritisation of returns over sustainability considerations, rigidity of frameworks and not reflecting high sustainability standards in the share price.
Other items the mining sector would like to see from the finance sector is for it to engage with regulators and standard-setters to ensure a ‘level playing field’ on sustainability; to link access to lower-cost capital with sustainability outcomes; and to pay more attention to community development impacts.
In addition, the UK could help set global norms for transparency and accountability through institutions such as the London Metals Exchange (LME), which enforces responsible sourcing standards, and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), which sets corporate ESG benchmarks.
Balleny noted that the LME is currently looking to create a market for sustainably produced aluminium, copper, nickel and zinc brands, which he believes could be 'a game-changer for the market', helping to drive higher standards within the industry.
He added that the lack of a ‘green premium’ for responsible producers undermines incentives to raise standards. 'The issue is not that there aren’t enough standards or people aren’t aware of the standards,' he said. 'The issue is that responsible mining does add costs, making irresponsible mining that much cheaper.'
However, treating ESG purely as a compliance cost could cause the UK to miss the chance to shape the global narrative on ethical supply chains. Instead, it could prove a strategic value driver and offer competitive advantage that could differentiate UK projects globally.
This is 'particularly as the USA is in the process of pulling back and backtracking on all things ESG-related, both at the federal government level and with investors and corporates,' he reasoned.
Mudd added that ESG standards drive shorter permitting times and build trust with local communities, helping projects avoid prolonged opposition and potentially saving costs in the long term. 'The UK doesn’t want to go in and just start digging,' he said. 'We want to go in and make sure we do it right.'
Blakeney agreed, but posed the question for the government: 'How do you facilitate [that]? Because we’re going to need lots of new projects.'
Closing the loop
Just as ESG standards create strategic value, embracing a circular economy could unlock additional economic and environmental benefits. The UK holds vast potential in secondary recovery and recycling. Initiatives such as the CMIC’s Waste and Scraps project is supporting this, particularly for copper and tungsten.
Alongside the upcoming Critical Minerals Strategy, the government is also due to release its Circular Economy Strategy. Isabelle Linden, Senior Associate Director and Circular Economy Lead at Jacobs, called for greater collaboration between the two entities. 'We need the critical minerals team in the UK to tell the circular economy team the red flags on key materials. The circular economy team needs to listen and work with that to build real solutions into real projects for the future.'
She argued that, without collaboration, energy transition and net-zero plans won’t succeed – not due to the volume of materials needed, but the scale and the speed of material access required.
The decommissioning of more than 5,000 onshore wind turbines in Scotland by 2050 could recover up to 1.4Mt of critical raw materials, leaving over 8,000t of such material available.
'The problem we have at the moment is that nobody is doing anything about it,' warns Linden. 'There are some innovations and efforts starting to appear, but it’s all too minimal for real impact. Hopefully the reports about to come will bring some of the key data to help move the conversation forward, so we can become a bit less blind and make an active solution.'
Mudd warned that policy and regulation needs to be in place for the growth of large-scale recycling facilities for EV batteries and wind turbines, to ensure value from a circular economy approach.
Speakers further agreed that battery recycling, magnet recovery and electronic waste processing are crucial to delivering rapid, low-carbon sources of critical minerals, although Blakeney cautioned that recycling still requires technological advancements and that will take time. 'But I think it’s definitely worth making a policy priority, with the caveat that economics underpins everything. It also has to make money, and there has to be customers at the end of it.'
Gavin Harper, Critical Materials Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham, UK, proposed that world-leading technology R&D in the UK could help it leapfrog some of the competition. 'We’re in demand around the world, and so we need to think about how to leverage what our unique strengths and competitive advantages are.'
While circularity is often addressed at the end of the supply chain, integrating it at the design stage will ease disassembly of technology products later down the line. Additionally, using automation in disassembly will offer better economic returns.
Harper nodded to China’s 'very regulated, directed economy' that he says is helping it to 'steal the march' in this area. 'It’s not just the market being left to deliver the solutions. There is a role for the state in shaping what those solutions look like,' he insisted.
However, Dr Marina Zhang, Associate Professor at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia, gave a nuanced view of China’s dominance in critical mineral processing. She argued that its position, while powerful, is not invulnerable – and this could enable the UK and other countries to leverage their own assets.
While China controls most global refining capacity for materials such as gallium, graphite, rare-earths and lithium, it does not control the bulk of upstream deposits and instead relies on imports from countries like Africa and Australia.
This dependency forms a strategic vulnerability, claimed Zhang, which gives China 'very strong incentives to cooperate'.
Zhang proposed a multilateral framework where China contributes as a technological supplier and standards-setter in trusted critical minerals supplies. This, she argued, would allow its critical minerals suppliers to be more easily accepted in the global supply chain. In turn, the UK’s strengths in governance, standards and finance could position it as a credible systems coordinator, rather than a volume producer.
In light of this, Benham put forward some big questions that, as yet, remain unanswered. 'What does security of supply really mean for the UK, particularly given the fiscal situation of the country? Does the UK want to secure supply domestically as much as it can, or is it focused on supporting international partners with the expectations that these relationships are reciprocal? And whose role is it to develop security of supply for critical minerals? Private investment, as well as government, needs to be aligned here.'
While domestic mining, recycling and processing will no doubt play an important role, a pragmatic consensus emerged from the event’s discussions – the UK cannot and should not aim for mineral self-sufficiency. Instead, it must pursue resilience through diversification, innovation and responsible leadership.
