Last week, the UK Government published Resilience for the Future: The UK’s critical minerals strategy.  Project Blue assesses what the strategy is likely to mean for the country. 

The document opens by asserting the need to improve the “resilience of critical minerals supply chains” and to ensure that “…the minerals we will need to power our world in the future can be made available in the quantities needed, extracted in responsible ways, and supported by well-functioning and transparent markets”.  The strategy, therefore, correctly identifies at the outset that the challenges we face with regard to critical materials are global in nature and that the solutions to these challenges require collaboration, not unilateralism. 

The strategy sets out an accelerate-collaborate-enhance (“A-C-E”) approach with the latter two parts promoting an “international” response to the challenges faced. 

Looking first at the former, in looking to accelerate the UK’s domestic capabilities, Project Blue believes that the strategy identifies the UK’s current position well.  When the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre (CMIC) was launched in the country earlier this month, the press release noted that the intention of the CMIC was to keep the UK “…ahead of an increasingly competitive global market for critical minerals” when in reality it needs to play catch up.  This strategy’s rhetoric is well balanced.  It talks of “maximising” UK production without positioning its upstream and midstream potential as a centrepiece.  It talks about “rebuilding” skills in mining and minerals (implying a realisation that these have fallen well below their peak), and “re-establishing” the UK as a centre of critical mineral and mining expertise.  While domestic production in the UK should be encouraged, Project Blue welcomes the strategy’s focus on skills, research and development, and the nurturing of circular economies.  The UK is home to a wide variety of world-class firms and organisations – particularly in research and finance – which can play a huge part in the development of global resilient supply chains.  More government support in these areas will be invaluable. 

The strategy’s second pillar focuses on the need to “collaborate with international partners” by diversifying supply, supporting UK companies to participate in diversified supply chains, and developing the country’s diplomatic, trading and development relationships around the world to improve supply resilience.  Project Blue agrees that the more diverse supply chains are, the more resilient they are, and that diplomacy has its part to play, but questions whether the actions set out in the strategy are sufficient to improve the prevailing situation.  The UK needs to do more than “build the case” for market-led, transparent, and diversified supply chains – it needs to help build the supply chains themselves.  Critically, it is unclear from this part of the strategy – which talks mostly about working with development banks and learning more about deep sea minerals – the extent to which “support [for] UK companies to participate in building responsible, diversified supply chains overseas” means financial support.  Put simply, to be impactful, it needs to be. 

The final area of focus is to enhance international markets by boosting ESG, developing well-functioning and transparent markets through improved data and traceability, and championing London as the world’s capital of responsible finance for critical minerals.  This (we think correctly) identifies that the best role the UK can play to support global critical material value chains is that of a thought leader, and centre of excellence. 

All in all, Project Blue thinks that the strategy’s authors should be commended for their positioning of the challenges ahead, the strategy’s global ambition, and for identifying the UK’s current position and future potential in the critical materials space.  The strategy is both realistic and pragmatic.  However – the hard work is now to come.  A delivery plan is due later in the year and it is this (and its implementation) that the government will be judged on.