Reflections from the 2024 EIT Raw Materials Summit by Bastien Flon
Bastien Flon attended the 2024 EIT Raw Materials Summit in Brussels, which took place 14-16th May. In this text, he shares his experiences and observations from the Summit. Bastien is currently interning with the Mistra Mineral Governance programme and the Stockholm Environment Institute.
Bastien Flon is an intern at SEI.
BACKGROUND OF MY RESEARCH AND EXPERIENCE AT THE SUMMIT
In my research, I analyze the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), a key EU policy to achieve key economic and strategic objectives in the context of rising supply chain challenges and geopolitical tensions. One measure of the Act to ensure the safe supply of critical and strategic raw materials is to accelerate mining developments on European soil through so-called Strategic Projects, which would benefit from national priority status and shorter permitting procedures to accelerate their development and enhance investment security.
However, my preliminary results suggest that the Act may present limitations in its public acceptance strategies, especially as extraction intensifies in the EU. By conducting a comparative case study in Sweden and Portugal, I realized that opposition is often linked to shortcomings in national laws and deeper concerns held by local populations, which the CRMA may not address efficiently. Addressing public acceptance issues is of crucial importance, to ensure the efficient implementation of the Act and bolster the EU’s industrial competitiveness.
Consequently, at the Summit, I invited various stakeholders – be they policymakers, industrials, or other representatives – to reflect and engage on public acceptance issues, which may grow in significance as the CRMA unfolds. On one side, it seemed that policymakers had a limited willingness to recognize potential limitations in the Act. This stance can be understood, considering that the Act just entered into force and that the Summit took place during its early policy stage, providing reassurance to investors regarding mining prospects in the EU. On the other side, promoters and their representatives seemed particularly concerned about public acceptance issues, showing keen interest in acquiring more tools and guidance to ensure the acceptance of their future mining projects.
GENERAL TRENDS OBSERVED AT THE SUMMIT
The CRMA was at the core of the summit, and great excitement could be felt about its implementation, especially on the side of policymakers. The CRMA was seen as an “absolute key” to maintaining the EU’s competitive advantage globally. Implementing the act was seen as crucial to ensure the EU’s competitiveness against the United States, and especially China, by making the so-called Strategic Projects “bulletproof” and “turbocharge” mining in the EU.
While the CRMA and its potential for competitiveness was at the core of the Summit, the issue of public acceptance was also raised. Stakeholders held differing perspectives on the challenges surrounding public acceptance within the EU. While some took public acceptance for granted, others expressed varying degrees of optimism or pessimism. Some stakeholders attributed mining opposition to a minority of people who fail to understand the benefits that mining could bring to individuals and society. Nonetheless, there was a prevailing sentiment that public acceptance would be ensured by changing the perception of mining – by “making mining look sexy”. To achieve public acceptance in the EU, stakeholders advocated for different actions, such as promoting “sustainable mining” practices or the running of “European-wide educational campaigns” to ensure the understanding of mining benefits.
WHO ATTENDS THE EVENT AND WHO IS NOT INCLUDED?
The summit was primarily attended by industry CEOs and representatives, alongside stakeholders from mining/raw materials interests, as well as officials and policymakers. Notably, industrial actors and representatives formed the majority of attendees, while officials and policymakers constituted a minority. This distribution was reflected in the selection of panelists.
During the event, I observed a notable absence of civil society organizations, apart from labor unions. There were no organizations advocating for environmental causes or indigenous interests present. This absence could be attributed to various factors, including the high cost of attendance (approximately EUR 1200 for the two-day general entry), as well as the Summit’s general purpose of fostering mining and industrial momentum in the EU. The Summit was not a place that opposed fundamentally diverging views, but rather one to facilitate the achievement of the EU’s policy and industrial objectives.
HOW DID POLICYMAKERS AND OTHER ACTORS PERCEIVE GOAL CONFLICTS AND TRADE-OFFS?
Based on the previous observations, only a few references to goal conflicts and trade-offs were made. Policymakers hardly referred to goals conflicts, as they focused on the potential of the CRMA in ensuring the competitiveness of EU industries, and on reassuring operators and investors for the implementation of mining projects in the EU. Promoters and their representatives did raise the issue of goal conflicts, emphasizing the importance of public acceptance measures.
WHAT WAS ON THE AGENDA AND, IMPORTANTLY, WHICH QUESTIONS WERE NOT ON THE TABLE?
The following topics were central to the agenda of the Summit (ranked by order of importance at the Summit and based on my experience):
The CRMA
Industrial needs
EU regulation/overregulation
Global competition and the threat of Chinese supply chain integration.
Competitiveness
Goal achievements
Supply chain resilience
Reskilling in the EU
Public acceptance and mining Reputation.
National investment plans
In my view, topics not addressed included the persistent challenges within the EU concerning the implementation of mining projects, owing to legal disputes and varying degrees of local and national opposition. As mentioned earlier, the agenda focused on fostering momentum toward realizing the EU's economic and strategic objectives, thereby offering reassurance to promoters and investors.
/ Bastien Flon, intern at SEI