The EU's raw materials strategy - where is it?
by Reinhard Bütikofer
19 September 2011
A forum for dialogue is needed for countries to jaw-jaw rather than war-war over raw materials
Raw materials are the bread and butter of European industry; without them assembly lines grind to a standstill and prosperity takes a nosedive. Growing international tension over resources has conjured up the possibility of such a nightmare scenario. China's momentary export ban on the much-coveted rare-earth elements to Japan, in particular, has played heavy on many a policymaker's mind.
The result - a hotchpotch of national resource strategies of every description, has emerged in Europe. France, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have already put theirs on the table. More are expected to follow. Regrettably, this is only natural. National fears quickly give rise to uncoordinated and often ill thought-out national policies. This is neither effective nor helpful. Quite the contrary, it carries the risk of member states working at cross-purposes.
The European Commission entered the fray in 2008, and most recently in February 2011 - with the publication of its "raw materials initiative". Any hopes that this institution would spearhead a concerted European raw materials strategy, though, were quickly dashed. Recommendations regarding internal European Union governance to ensure coherence and coordination between the member states are conspicuous by their absence. One could argue that the initiative even fails to bring its own house in order as it lacks a governance structure on raw materials in the commission itself. A strategy without a governance structure for implementation - enforcement and monitoring is a half-baked strategy.
My report on an effective raw materials strategy for Europe, which was passed by an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament on September 13, addresses these shortcomings. It calls on the commission to establish a high-level inter-departmental raw materials task force in 2011, as already exists in the United States - encompassing the relevant departments including the Directorates-General, the Joint Research Centre, the European Environment Agency and the European External Action Service. Such a task force would elaborate, monitor and review policies and ensure strategic coherence - as well as establish an early warning system and risk-radar. In addition, the report not only calls on the commission to set up a raw materials roadmap to 2050 to identify future developments, threats and opportunities, but also to foster coordination and the exchange of best practice and information between member states. Besides internal governance, however, there is also a clear need for global governance on raw materials - in order to mitigate against the increasing competition over resources.
An international platform where grievances can be voiced, mutual understanding increased and ideally some rules within this increasing competition over resources set, would help contain a worsening scramble for resources. Several forums already exist - such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Metal Study Groups and the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development. But none of them include all the necessary players from the industrial, emerging and developing countries.
Something more akin to the International Energy Forum, which includes energy ministers from 86 countries, is needed for metals and other important minerals. In this context, the G20 - under the leadership of the French Presidency - should press for either the establishment of a new international forum on raw materials or it could upgrade the existing MMMSD to include at least more EU member states, the United States, China and Australia. As an interim step, the commission should already support widening the scope of the International Metals Study Group - currently focusing on copper, lead, zinc and nickel - to include other metals such as iron and other high-technology metals as well as increasing their membership. Track two diplomacy should also be reinforced by supporting the exchange of academia, non-governmental organisations and think tanks between resource-relevant industrial, emerging and developing countries.
All of these measures should be in the interest of everybody. After all, no country is completely autarkic in today's interdependent world. Industrial, emerging and developing countries have a shared interest in inter alia improving statistics on supply and demand – as, indeed, the IEF is doing with its joint oil data initiative; with its good governance and transparency in commodity markets. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: a forum for dialogue is needed for the countries to jaw-jaw rather than war-war over raw materials.
Raw materials policy has taken centre stage and policymakers have been quick to propose all kinds of measures. In the process, regrettably, the finer nuances of governance – internal and global – have been neglected. Without these fundamental keystones we risk undermining the very goal that these measures seek to achieve. With its raw materials policy report, the European Parliament has outlined what a common strategy should be. It is up to the commission and member states to put it into practise.
Reinhard Bütikofer MEP is vice-president of the Greens/European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament and rapporteur on raw materials
Raw materials are the bread and butter of European industry; without them assembly lines grind to a standstill and prosperity takes a nosedive. Growing international tension over resources has conjured up the possibility of such a nightmare scenario. China's momentary export ban on the much-coveted rare-earth elements to Japan, in particular, has played heavy on many a policymaker's mind.
The result - a hotchpotch of national resource strategies of every description, has emerged in Europe. France, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands have already put theirs on the table. More are expected to follow. Regrettably, this is only natural. National fears quickly give rise to uncoordinated and often ill thought-out national policies. This is neither effective nor helpful. Quite the contrary, it carries the risk of member states working at cross-purposes.
The European Commission entered the fray in 2008, and most recently in February 2011 - with the publication of its "raw materials initiative". Any hopes that this institution would spearhead a concerted European raw materials strategy, though, were quickly dashed. Recommendations regarding internal European Union governance to ensure coherence and coordination between the member states are conspicuous by their absence. One could argue that the initiative even fails to bring its own house in order as it lacks a governance structure on raw materials in the commission itself. A strategy without a governance structure for implementation - enforcement and monitoring is a half-baked strategy.
My report on an effective raw materials strategy for Europe, which was passed by an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament on September 13, addresses these shortcomings. It calls on the commission to establish a high-level inter-departmental raw materials task force in 2011, as already exists in the United States - encompassing the relevant departments including the Directorates-General, the Joint Research Centre, the European Environment Agency and the European External Action Service. Such a task force would elaborate, monitor and review policies and ensure strategic coherence - as well as establish an early warning system and risk-radar. In addition, the report not only calls on the commission to set up a raw materials roadmap to 2050 to identify future developments, threats and opportunities, but also to foster coordination and the exchange of best practice and information between member states. Besides internal governance, however, there is also a clear need for global governance on raw materials - in order to mitigate against the increasing competition over resources.
An international platform where grievances can be voiced, mutual understanding increased and ideally some rules within this increasing competition over resources set, would help contain a worsening scramble for resources. Several forums already exist - such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Metal Study Groups and the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development. But none of them include all the necessary players from the industrial, emerging and developing countries.
Something more akin to the International Energy Forum, which includes energy ministers from 86 countries, is needed for metals and other important minerals. In this context, the G20 - under the leadership of the French Presidency - should press for either the establishment of a new international forum on raw materials or it could upgrade the existing MMMSD to include at least more EU member states, the United States, China and Australia. As an interim step, the commission should already support widening the scope of the International Metals Study Group - currently focusing on copper, lead, zinc and nickel - to include other metals such as iron and other high-technology metals as well as increasing their membership. Track two diplomacy should also be reinforced by supporting the exchange of academia, non-governmental organisations and think tanks between resource-relevant industrial, emerging and developing countries.
All of these measures should be in the interest of everybody. After all, no country is completely autarkic in today's interdependent world. Industrial, emerging and developing countries have a shared interest in inter alia improving statistics on supply and demand – as, indeed, the IEF is doing with its joint oil data initiative; with its good governance and transparency in commodity markets. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: a forum for dialogue is needed for the countries to jaw-jaw rather than war-war over raw materials.
Raw materials policy has taken centre stage and policymakers have been quick to propose all kinds of measures. In the process, regrettably, the finer nuances of governance – internal and global – have been neglected. Without these fundamental keystones we risk undermining the very goal that these measures seek to achieve. With its raw materials policy report, the European Parliament has outlined what a common strategy should be. It is up to the commission and member states to put it into practise.
Reinhard Bütikofer MEP is vice-president of the Greens/European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament and rapporteur on raw materials
COMMENTS
