Conclusions by Winand Quaedvlieg, VNO-NCW, of the VNO-NCW HCSS Economic

Security and Raw Materials conference, Friday 30 January, 2015.

We learned from various speakers that we have to do at least three things. Together they form

an uncommonly heavy work program. We have not only to abolish old thinking, but also to

rethink our beliefs and even to recalibrate our compasses!

Now what does this mean in practice?

Today’s issue, developing a strategy for secure supply of critical raw materials, demands

basically three things:

- New approaches to developing relations with the supplier countries

- Developing alternatives; we need to redevelop European mining, to develop

substitutes through innovation and urban mining

- Improve efficiency; here too innovation is key

We have to do this in a totally new global environment:

- Multilateralism has been succeeded by multi-polarity

- Trade policy is trumped by power policy

- Win-win thinking is complemented by zero sum thinking; in nowadays’ world there is

not only co-operation, but also confrontation

This new environment fundamentally determines our policy options.

A number of takeaways can be distilled from todays’ discussions:

- The importance of the raw materials issue is clear; 90% of important raw materials

come from outside the EU. They are essential for crucial economic activities, e.g.

electricity storage linked to renewable energy. It is also revealing that large investment

decisions such as the selling of the lighting division of Siemens, Osram, were

determined by raw materials considerations.

- National and European politics, and companies, are gradually waking up to the new

world and the relevance of raw materials challenges; the awareness that geopolitics are

back in our world is taking hold; but full awareness of this dimension still has to take

hold; a number of interventions today were clearly based on the presumption of a

climate of good international co-operation ; however we should also face the

possibility of a less benign international environment, although we all hope to avoid it.

- The European dimension is key in this field; raw materials challenges are too big for a

single country; although single countries, also the Netherlands, can certainly lead the

way in developing new policies and outreach.

- Any raw materials policy has to start with good information, data and analysis; Europe

had delays in this field, but it is now catching up.

- There are still huge raw materials resources, also in Europe, and also for strategic

items like Rare Earth Elements (REE).

- Food autarky is also an element in the discussion. The Netherlands can be autarkic for

food, although we would have to adapt our diet.

- With a view on raw materials, a sound interaction between public policies and markets

is needed; partnerships are key.

- Business is part of the solution. But the market needs to be complemented by

government action.

Concerning the development of alternatives, the following points were raised:

- The Netherlands is not sufficiently proactive in this field, e.g. in the development of a

substitute for lithium.

- There need to be new initiatives in the field of collective think tank activity of

governments, business and academia.

In respect of European mining, the perspective of a new generation of conflicts with NGOs

and local population s was raised. This is of course not something we want. To avoid it, this

demands responsibility on two sides: a stronger and broader awareness of the necessity of

additional mining of raw materials in Europe (recycling can only partly solve the problem);

and a strong commitment to using only state of the art environmentally friendly techniques,

social policies and stakeholder engagement. The concept of zero impact mining should be

further developed.

Concerning the securing of supplies, the following points were raised:

- Promote trade policy, open markets, and the abolition of export restrictions. These are

of course solutions which presuppose a co-operative world.

- We must be aware of the strategic and geopolitical dimension; in this respect the

Chinese policy to pursue world dominance of rare earth elements was raised. Also, the

China-Japan row was mentioned several times.

To avoid a polarised approach, it does not help to say that we as Western countries have a

moral right to get reasonably priced raw materials. The other side will simply say they have a

moral right to the highest yield of their resources.

So we should indeed develop co-operative approaches, fair deals, win-win situations. This

demands courageous out-of-the-box thinking and enlightened self-interest. It means indeed, as

some said, that we should not only think of how to secure our own supplies, but also to

develop investment and the creation of added value in the source countries. In this respect the

development of local production in Africa, of refining capacity in Sumatra and of transferring

battery technology to Bolivia were mentioned as examples.

The sustainability of tariff escalation should also be considered. Tariff escalation blocks the

creation of added value in source countries. It is not logical in the word of today.

Various international initiatives were mentioned (EITI, CITES), as was the EU responsible

sourcing initiative. It was raised by business that this initiative should remain based on a

voluntary certification.

The main lines of conclusion were:

- There is increased awareness of the challenge to secure raw materials supplies.

- Many ideas exist on how to solve the challenges.

- Some are based on the presumption that a co-operative world is available.

- Some are based on ideas how to create co-operation in a multipolar world, e.g. by

developing shared benefits.

- We should also accept the reality of some unfriendly relations in a multipolar world, which

necessitate development of alternative sources and substitutes.