COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS On the review of the list of critical raw materials for the EU and the implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative 
Date: 2014-05-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competitiveness, innovation, raw material, security of supply, sustainable development, third country, waste recycling













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0297 - EN











|



52014DC0297

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS On the review of the list of critical raw materials for the EU and the implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative /* COM/2014/0297 final */









1. INTRODUCTION
This
Communication follows the Communication of 24 June 2013[1]
on the implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative.  It presents the new
list of critical raw materials and provides, in the conclusions, an overview of
the upcoming activities related to the Raw Materials Initiative, the European
Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials and the part of Horizon 2020 that
concerns raw materials.
A parallel Staff
Working Document summarizes the work done over last year under the three
pillars of the Raw Materials Initiative[2]
as well as cross-cutting activities.
In the 2011
Communication on raw materials[3],
the Commission formally adopted a list of 14 ‘critical’ raw materials (i.e. raw
materials with a high supply-risk and a high economic importance) and said that
it would continue to monitor the situation to identify priority actions. It
also undertook to review and update the list at least every three years. This
communication includes therefore a revised list of critical raw materials for
the European Union (see Annex 1).
The purpose of
the list is to contribute to the implementation of the EU industrial policy and
to ensure that European industrial competitiveness is strengthened through
actions in other policy areas. This should increase the overall competitiveness
of the EU economy, in line with the Commission´s aspiration of raising
industry’s contribution to GDP to as much as 20% by 2020. It should also help
to incentivise the European production of critical raw materials and facilitate
the launching of new mining activities. The list is also being used to help
prioritise needs and actions. For example, it serves as a supporting element
when negotiating trade agreements, challenging trade distortion measures or
promoting research and innovation. Information on its use by Member States and industry is, however, very scarce. It is also worth emphasising that all raw
materials, even if not classed as critical, are important for the European
economy and that a given raw material and its availability to the European
economy should therefore not be neglected just because it is not classed as
critical.
2. THE REVIEW OF
THE LIST OF CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS FOR THE EU
The review, the
first since the list’s adoption in 2011, was conducted with three main objectives:
a)      Widening
the scope of raw materials analysed
In the 2013
study, 54 non-energy, non-food materials were analysed (41 were analysed in
2010), using the same methodology as the previous study. This extended scope
includes seven new abiotic materials and three biotic materials (rubber,
pulpwood and sawn softwood). The 2014 critical raw materials list includes 13
of the 14 materials identified in the previous study, with only tantalum moving
out of the list (thanks to a lower supply risk). Six new materials are
included: borates, chromium, coking coal, magnesite, phosphate rock and silicon
metal. 
b)      Refining
the analysis and using additional data
In comparison to
the 2010 study, greater detail is provided on the rare earth elements by
splitting them into ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ categories, both included as separate
entries in the new list. New European data has been integrated into the study
and a ‘value chain assessment’ is included for all critical raw materials.
c)      Preserving
comparability with the 2010 study
To enable
comparability with the 2010 report, the methodology was not fundamentally
changed. New information and insights, on downstream supply chains for example,
have therefore been used to improve the qualitative analysis, not the
quantitative methodology. The new report contains recommendations for changing
the methodology for the next report in 2016.
The new list is
presented in Annex 1, consisting of 20 critical raw materials, with key data
for each item.
3.  CONCLUSION
The Raw
Materials Initiative is a medium- to long-term project. All in all, significant
progress has been made in implementing the initiative, particularly its first
and third pillars. Most actions foreseen in the two Communications have been
implemented although indicators that would enable the monitoring of the results
are still lacking. In the coming years, the now well-established European
Innovation Partnership and the Horizon 2020 programme are expected to drive
progress in a wide range of areas.
Further
development of the second pillar, especially as regards framework conditions
for mining and improving the raw materials knowledge base, should now be a key
priority. This could include setting up a pan-European knowledge base of
non-energy, non-agricultural raw materials by 2020 and identifying appropriate
indicators to measure progress.
The Commission
aims to prepare an issues paper on seabed mining by the beginning of 2015.
The Commission
will produce a Communication on the European Innovation Partnership to explain
how the Commission itself, Member States, industry, academia and NGOs intend to
work together to put the strategic implementation plan of the EIP into
practice. 
Since its
launch, the EIP has held an annual high-level conference. The 2014 conference
will take place in the autumn in Italy. A number of key ‘raw materials
commitments’will be presented.
The process for
the next strategic programming phase for research covering 2016–18, will begin
in 2014. The focus for raw materials will be on industrial demonstration and pilot
activities.
With the
publication of a call on 14 February 2014, closing on 10 September 2014, the
European Institute of Innovation and Technology has launched the selection
process for a Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) on raw materials. This KIC
will bring together higher education, research and business organisations to
boost EU's innovation capacity in the area of raw materials. 
The final
meeting of the European Rare Earth Competency Network (ERECON) project will
take place at the end of 2014, delivering sector papers and policy
recommendations.
During the rest
of 2014, raw materials diplomacy events are planned with Greenland, the African
Union and several technologically advanced countries such as the USA, and Canada. From 2015, various raw materials diplomacy and business development actions with
non-EU partners could be carried out using the new Partnership Instrument.
In line with the
conclusions of the March 2014 European Council that “efforts should continue to
improve market access around the world by facilitating the integration of
European companies in global value chains and promoting free, fair and open
trade while asserting its interests, in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual
benefit. [...]Further action must also be pursued on ensuring access to core
raw materials”, negotiations and enforcement of trade rules will remain a high
priority, with a particular emphasis on the TTIP negotiations with the United States. 
Finally,
regarding the third pillar, the highest priority in 2014 will be the waste
policy review, including the revision of targets.
Annex
1
List of critical
raw materials
The 20 raw
materials listed below are critical because risks of supply shortage and their
impacts on the economy are higher than those of most of the other raw
materials. The chart indicates clearly that China is the most influential
country in terms of global supply of the 20 critical raw materials. Several
other countries have dominant supplies of specific raw materials, such as Brazil (niobium). Supply of other materials, for example Platinum Group Metals and borates,
is more diverse but is still concentrated. The risks associated with this
concentration of production are in many cases compounded by low
substitutability and low recycling rates.
 Raw materials || Main producers (2010, 2011, 2012) || Main sources of imports into the EU (mainly 2012) || Substitutability index* || End-of-life recycling input rate** 
 Antimony (Stibium) || China 86 % || China 92% (unwrought and powdered) || 0.62 || 11 % 
 Bolivia 3 % || Vietnam (unwrought and powdered) 3 % 
 Tajikistan 3 % || Kyrgyzstan 2% (unwrought and powdered); Russia 2% (unwrought and powdered) 
 Beryllium || USA 90 % || USA, China and Mozambique[4] || 0.85 || 19 % 
 China 9 % 
 Mozambique 1 % 
 Borates || Turkey 41 % || Turkey 98 % (natural borates) and 86 % (refined borates) || 0.88 || 0 % 
 USA 33 % || USA 6%, Peru 2% (refined borates); Argentina 2% (natural borates) 
 Chromium || South Africa 43 % || South Africa 80 % || 0.96 || 13 % 
 Kazakhstan 20 % || Turkey 16 % 
 India 13 % || Others 4 % 
 Cobalt (Cobaltum) || DRC 56 % ↑ || Russia 96 % (cobalt ores and concentrates) || 0.71 || 16 % 
 China 6%; Russia 6%; Zambia 6 % || USA 3 % (cobalt ores and concentrates) 
 Coking coal || China 53 % || USA 41 % || 0.68 || 0 % 
 Australia 18 % || Australia 37 % 
 Russia 8%; USA 8 % || Russia 9 % 
 Fluorspar (Fluorite) || China 56 % || Mexico 48 % ↑ || 0.80 || 0 % 
 Mexico 18 % || China 13 % ↓ 
 Mongolia 7 % || South Africa 12 % ↓ 
 Gallium[5] || China 69 % (refined) || USA 49 % || 0.60 || 0 % 
 Germany 10 % (refined) || China 39 % 
 Kazakhstan 6 % (refined) || Hong Kong 8 % 
 Germanium || China 59 % ↓ || China 47 % ↓ || 0.86 || 0 % 
 Canada 17 % || USA 35 % 
 USA 15 % || Russia 14 % 
 Indium || China 58 % || China 24 % ↓ || 0.82 || 0 % 
 Japan 10 % || Hong Kong 19 % ↑ 
 Korea 10 % || Canada 13 % 
 Canada 10 % || Japan 11 % 
 Magnesite || China 69 % || Turkey 91 % || 0.72 || 0 % 
 Russia 6%; Slovakia 6 % || China 8 % 
 Magnesium || China 86 % ↑ || China 91 % ↓ || 0.64 || 14% 
 Russia 5 % || Israel 5 % 
 Israel 4 % || Russia 2 % 
 Natural graphite || China 68 % || China 57 % ↓ || 0.72 || 0% 
 India 14 % || Brazil 15 % 
 Brazil 7 % || Norway 9 % 
 Niobium || Brazil 92 % || Brazil 86 % (Ferro-Niobium) || 0.69 || 11% 
 Canada 7 % || Canada 14 % (Ferro-Niobium) 
 Phosphate rock || China 38 % || Morocco 33% || 0.98 || 0% 
 USA 17 % || Algeria 13% 
 Morocco 15 % || Russia 11% 
 Platinum Group  Metals || South Africa 61 % ↓ || South Africa 32 % ↓ || 0.83 || 35% 
 Russia 27 % ↑ || USA, 22 % ↑ 
 Zimbabwe 5 % || Russia 19 % ↓ 
 Heavy Rare Earth Elements || China 99 % || China 41 % (all REEs) Russia 35 % (all REEs) USA 17 % (all REEs) || 0.77 || 0% 
 Australia 1 % 
 Light Rare Earth Elements || China 87 % || 0.67 || 0% 
 USA 7 % 
 Australia 3 % 
 Silicon metal (Silicium) || China 56 % || Norway 38 % || 0.81 || 0% 
 Brazil 11 % || Brazil 24 % 
 USA 8%; Norway 8 % || China 8 % 
 France 6 % || Russia 7 % 
 Tungsten (Wolframium) || China 85 % || Russia 98 %↑ || 0.70 || 37% 
 Russia 4 % || Bolivia 2 % 
 Bolivia  2 % 
The six new
critical raw materials are in dark grey in the above table. Unlike in the 2010
report, heavy rare earths, light rare earths and scandium were assessed
separately, not as one group of ‘rare earths’. Heavy and light rare earths are
in light grey.
For the main
producers
and
the main sources of imports into the EU, arrows indicate an increase or
decrease of approximately 10 percentage points since the 2010 report on
critical raw materials.
Notes:
(*)
The ‘Substitutability index’ is a measure of the difficulty in substituting the
material, scored and weighted across all applications. Values are between 0 and
1, with 1 being the least substitutable.
(**)
The ‘End-of-life recycling input rate’ measures the proportion of metal and
metal products that are produced from end-of-life scrap and other metal-bearing
low grade residues in end-of-life scrap worldwide.
Source:
compiled on the basis of the 2014 ‘Critical raw materials for the EU’ report by
the ad hoc working group on defining critical raw materials of the Raw
Materials Supply Group
[1] COM(2013) 442 final
[2] The three pillars are: 1. Ensuring a fair and sustainable supply of
raw materials from global markets; 2. Ensuring a sustainable supply of raw
materials within the EU; 3. Boosting resource efficiency and increasing the
amount of recycling. The Commission will continue reporting through such Staff
Working Documents on the implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative.
[3] COM(2011) 25 final, "Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions tackling the challenges in commodity markets and on raw
materials".
[4] Subject to strong fluctuations.
[5] Gallium is a by-product; the best available data refer to
production capacity, not to production as such.