OPTICS SERBIANS PUSHED OUT AS CHINA TAKES OVER A MINING EMPIRE Beijing’s investment is transforming the landscape in Bor — and the lives of the people who call it home. Text and photos by MATTEO TREVISAN in Bor, Serbia Ixeca, a farmer, observes a landslide in his orchard in Slatina, which he believes was caused by irregular operations at the underground mine owned by China’s state-owned group Zijin Mining. In northeastern Serbia, the town of Bor rose around some of Europe’s most significant copper and gold deposits. From the 1940s, the region quickly drew workers from all over Yugoslavia. Majdanpek, located just 70 kilometers away, expanded around another massive reserve, estimated at more than 600 million tons of ore. For decades, these mining centers sustained Yugoslav heavy industry, but today that legacy is increasingly fragile. Since 2018, the mining complex has been taken over by Chinese state-owned group Zijin Mining, which has invested €2.3 billion to increase production. The expansion goes far beyond industry — it is transforming the land and the lives of its inhabitants. Whole families are watching their homes, properties, and memories disappear as settlements are engulfed by the mine. The Serbian government has failed to provide meaningful alternatives for resettlement. Advertisement The environmental toll is profound: forests and rivers are being destroyed, wildlife is under threat, and residents endure some of the most polluted air in Europe. Meanwhile, a growing Chinese workforce — now numbering in the thousands — remains largely segregated in closed camps, seldom mixing with locals, leaving behind a vast yet intangible presence. Bor and Majdanpek illustrate a broader pattern. In 2022, Chinese investment in Serbia equaled the combined input of all 27 EU countries for the first time, raising questions about sovereignty and neocolonial influence. The debate grew sharper after the collapse of a Chinese-renovated railway station in Novi Sad that killed 16 people in 2024, sparking waves of protest. As Zijin Mining continues to expand its footprint, the region and its people are left suspended in a battle between economic profit and the slow erosion of collective memory — the disappearing homes, traditions and history of threatened communities. Feeling the change: Once a small village, the Serbian town of Bor experienced dramatic growth last century following the discovery of large gold and copper deposits. Above, Željko, who has worked at the mine for more than a decade, says that safety regulations have worsened and accidents have increased since China’s state-owned Zijin Mining bought the complex. Željko lost 40 percent of mobility in his right arm following a workplace accident in 2023. Also in the photos above, the Zivkovic family inside their home in Slatina, near Bor. The family’s main source of income is agriculture. In recent years, their land has been expropriated due to the expansion of Zijin Mining’s operations. The son now works as a driver for the mine, like many others in the area who can’t find other employment. CHAPTER 1 THE CHINESE New audience: A Chinese cook in a Chinese restaurant in Bor. The text on her apron could be translated as “I make money by the shovelful.” Next, large screens outside the Zijin Mining headquarters in Bor display videos promoting the company’s activities in the region. The company has brought in thousands of workers from China, housing them in camps within the mining area and preventing them from integrating with the local population. “This is colonization,” says Ixeca, whose family has lived off farming for generations. Now, the expansion of mining activity threatens their livelihood. Some of their lands have already been expropriated and they are suing Zijin Mining. Neighbors? The Chinese and Serbian flags inside a Chinese restaurant in Bor. The contract between Serbia and Zijin Mining remains classified, raising concerns over its legality. The Chinese presence in the area is overwhelming but often invisible. Only Zijin Mining managers and senior staff are allowed to leave the company’s camps, unlike regular workers from China. Leaving a mark: Top, one of the buildings used as offices by Zijin Mining in Bor. Serbia stands out as a focal point of the Chinese footprint not only in the Western Balkans but also across Central and Eastern Europe. Beijing has emerged as the largest individual investor in Serbia. Health risks: Above, an X-ray of the lungs of a woman from Krivelj, a village near Bor, who died of lung cancer at a young age. Her family blames pollution from mining activities. The effects of intensive extraction and smelting are felt across the region. Air quality is a major concern: A report from January 2024 revealed frequent spikes in sulfur dioxide levels around Bor, contributing to both acute and chronic respiratory issues, as well as acid rain. The study also found fine particulate matter containing heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, nickel and arsenic. No systematic assessment of public health has been carried out since Zijin took over operations. Hard at work: Next, a view of the copper and gold mine in Majdanpek. Bor and Majdanpek hold one of the largest copper reserves in the world and one of the biggest gold deposits in Europe. In 2023, Serbia exported approximately 1.06 million tons of copper ores and concentrates, worth $1.46 billion. The main buyer was China. Advertisement CHAPTER 2 THE SERBIANS Perspective: “It’s become like we’re sleeping on gold but dying of cancer,” says 73-year-old Joleht, seen inside her home in Slatina, right. Neighbors say that their homes are slowly collapsing due to the underground copper and gold mining operations. They face cracks and water infiltrations throughout the walls. Anger: People protest against the central government and widespread corruption march through the streets of Majdanpek in February 2025. Dead river: Bottom, the Borska Reka River, notoriously known as one of the most polluted waterways in Europe. It is the main tributary of the Veliki Timok River. Sediment analysis has shown high concentrations of copper, arsenic, and nickel, exceeding remediation thresholds, particularly near mining areas. As a result, the Borska Reka is considered a “dead river,” devoid of aquatic life, with severe environmental impacts that extend to the Danube via the Timok. The Batut Institute of Public Health published a study showing an increased mortality risk for both men and women in Bor across all age groups. Local NGO Ne damo Jadar was founded to demand that the Majdanpek mine comply with environmental regulations and to advocate for solutions for residents whose homes are threatened by the mine’s expansion. Over the years, several incidents of violence have occurred between the NGO’s members and the private guards patrolling the mine. Hunter: Miodrag, a farmer from the village of Slatina, hunts near the land now occupied by Zijin Mining. His family relied heavily on agriculture, but their property has now been reduced to just a few hectares. Miodrag is currently suing the Chinese company, claiming the land was unfairly expropriated. “One day, we’ll have a mine under our house.” He also says that hunting has become impossible due to constant noise and explosions: “I can feel my house shake.” Family business: Father, son, and grandfather from the Jovic family in the yard of their home in Slatina. Some of their farming lands have been expropriated. “It’s over, there’s nothing else to be done,” says Ivica Jovic. “At this point, I accept they’ll take my land, but at least give me another place and let me continue farming.” Jovic has received cease-and-desist letters from Zijin Mining, after allegedly verbally confronting Chinese workers operating on what was once his land. Expansion: One of the many facilities owned by Zijin Mining, near the village of Slatina, just outside of Bor. The city, born thanks to the mine, and the nearby villages are now at risk of disappearing due to its expansion. Advertisement CHAPTER 3 THE FUTURE Staying put: Jasna Bacilovic, with her daughter Katarina Tomić, inside their home in the village of Krivelj. The village is slowly disappearing due to the expansion of the mine, but both Jasna and her entire family are committed to preserving their home, which has belonged to them since the 1800s, and to defending the village. “I don’t want to live anywhere else. This is home. I remember when I was a child, I used to play with my friends on a hill not far from here, but now that hill doesn’t exist anymore. My children may never even see this village because it might disappear forever,” says Tomić. Krivelj used to have up to 22 kafane —family-run taverns and restaurants. Today, only one remains and the village is slowly disappearing. “The village sounds are disappearing. I no longer hear shutters opening, the radio coming from my uncle’s house, or my neighbors talking. I open the window and hear nothing,” says Bacilovic. The departed: The bus stop in Majdanpek covered with death notices of local residents. Today, the municipality of Bor is one of the wealthiest in Serbia, despite local salaries remaining low, as in the rest of the country. The mine has expanded to the point of becoming one with the town. There are plans to relocate the entire community to Metovnica, an undeveloped area with only a few scattered farms, but nothing has been confirmed yet. Keeping watch: Bottom, a resident of Majdanpek looks toward the mine owned by the Chinese company Zijin Mining. An activist who has been fighting for years against pollution and the uncontrolled expansion of the mine, he has received both verbal and physical threats for his social engagement. Last train: A glimpse inside the train station of Bor, now abandoned after a fire that some locals believe was intentional. They suspect Zijin is interested in acquiring the railway land and expanding its operations in the area. Past lives: Below, the black and white photos show houses abandoned due to the expansion of the mine. Many families have sold their homes to Zijin Mining, as the company continues to buy land. The expansion of its activities threatens to wipe out entire villages. Next chapter: “This is not the end of the world, but from here you can see it,” says Aladin Zekypy, pictured with his two children, aged 10 and 7, inside their home, which stands just a few dozen meters from the open-pit mine in Bor. He dreams of one day being able to afford a healthier place for his family.

Dora Meredith is the director of ODI Europe. John Clarke is a former senior trade negotiator for the European Commission and former head of the EU Delegation to the WTO and the U.N. He is a fellow at Maastricht University and the Royal Asiatic Society, and a trade adviser for FIPRA public affairs. The EU rarely gets second chances in geopolitics. Yet last week, the European Parliament chose to throw one away. By voting to refer the long-awaited trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc to the Court of Justice of the EU for a legal opinion — a process that may take up two years — lawmakers dealt a serious blow to Europe’s credibility at a moment when speed and reliability matter more than ever. After more than two decades of negotiations, this deal was meant to signal that Europe could still act decisively in a world of intensifying geopolitical competition. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen argued this month, it was the ultimate test of Europe’s continued relevance on the world stage. Oblivious to this, the Parliament’s decision reinforces the perception that the bloc is unable to follow through, even when an agreement is finally within reach. It is, by any reasonable measure, a strategic own goal. The consequences of this go well beyond trade. Mercosur governments spent years negotiating this free trade agreement (FTA) in good faith, navigating Europe’s hesitation, shifting demands and inconsistent political signals. Understandably, they are now interpreting the referral to the court as a political move. For partners already hedging their bets in an increasingly contested global landscape, it reinforces doubts over whether Europe can be relied on. Meanwhile, for Europe, the true damage is to a deeper truth it all too often obscures: That its real power comes from the ability to make such agreements and then implement them seriously, consistently and at scale. The EU–Mercosur agreement isn’t just another trade deal. It was designed as a framework for long-term economic, political and strategic partnership with a region where Europe’s influence has been steadily eroding. It offers comprehensive market access in goods and services, clearer investment rules, access to critical materials, structured political dialogue and a cooperation-based approach to managing disputes. Taken together, it is meant to anchor Europe more firmly in South America at a time when others, most notably China, have moved faster and with fewer constraints. And while that level of ambition hasn’t disappeared with the Parliament’s vote, it has been put at serious risk. Over the years, much of the criticism surrounding the Mercosur deal has focused on sustainability. Indeed, if eventually passed, this will be the litmus test for whether the EU can translate its values into influence. And to that end, the deal makes a wide set of previously voluntary commitments legally binding, including the implementation of the Paris climate targets and adherence to international conventions on labor rights, human rights, biodiversity and environmental protection. However, it does so through dialogue-based enforcement rather than automatic withdrawal in the face of noncompliance — an approach that reflects the political realities in both Brussels and the Mercosur countries. This has disappointed those calling for tougher regulation, but it highlights an uncomfortable truth: Europe’s leverage over sustainability outcomes doesn’t come from pretending it can coerce partners into compliance but from sustained engagement and cooperation. That was a red line for Mercosur governments, and without it there would be no agreement at all. The deal’s novel “rebalancing mechanism” sits within this logic, as it allows Mercosur countries to suspend concessions if future unforeseen EU regulations effectively negate promised market access. Critics fear this provision could be used to challenge future EU sustainability measures, but Mercosur countries see it as a safeguard against possible unilateral EU action, as exemplified by the Deforestation Regulation. Moreover, in practice, such mechanisms are rarely used. Plus, its inclusion was the price of securing an additional sustainability protocol. Most crucially, though, none of this will resolve itself through legal delay. On the contrary, postponement weakens Europe’s ability to shape outcomes on the ground. Research from Brazil’s leading climate institutes shows that ambitious international engagement strengthens domestic pro‑environment coalitions by increasing transparency, resources and political leverage. Absence, by contrast, creates space for actors with far lower standards. South American and EU leaders join hands following the signing of the now-delayed Mercosur agreement, Jan. 17, 2026., Paraguay. | Daniel Duarte/AFP via Getty Images The same logic applies to the deal’s economic dimension. The Commission rightly highlights the headline figures: Billions of euros in tariff savings, expanded market access, secure access to critical minerals and growing trade. According to a recent study by the European Centre for International Political Economy, each month of delay represents €3 billion in foregone exports. But these numbers matter less than what lies beneath them: Europe will be gaining all this while offering limited concessions in sensitive agricultural sectors; and Mercosur countries will be gaining access to the world’s largest single market — but only if they can meet demanding regulatory and environmental standards that could strain domestic capacity. Again, the real power lies in the deal’s implementation. If managed well, such pressures can drive investment, modernize standards and reduce dependence on raw commodity exports as Latin American think tanks have argued. This transition is precisely what the EU’s €1.8 billion Global Gateway investment package was designed to support. And delaying the agreement delays that as well. The Parliament’s decision isn’t just a procedural setback — it damages Europe’s greatest strength at a time when hesitation carries real cost. It also creates an immediate institutional dilemma for the Commission. Despite the judicial stay, the Commission is legally free to apply the agreement provisionally, but this is a difficult call: Apply it and enter a firestorm of criticism about avoiding democratic controls that will backfire the day the Parliament finally gets to vote on the agreement; or accept a two-year delay and postpone the deal’s economic benefits possibly indefinitely — Mercosur countries aren’t going to hold out forever. If it is going to recover, over the coming months Europe has to do everything possible to demonstrate both to its Mercosur partners and the wider world that this delay doesn’t amount to disengagement. This means sustained political dialogue, credible commitments on investment and cooperation — including the rollout of the Global Gateway — as well as a clear plan for the deal’s implementation the moment this legal process concludes. Two years is an eternity in today’s geopolitical climate. If Europe allows this moment to pass without course correction, others won’t wait. The deal might be imperfect, but irrelevance is far worse a fate. Europe must be much bolder in communicating that reality — to the world and, perhaps more urgently, to its own public.

BRUSSELS — EU leaders are scrambling to come up with a deal on Greenland’s future that would allow Donald Trump to claim victory on the issue without destroying the alliance that underpins European security.  From proposals to using NATO to bolster Arctic security to giving the U.S. concessions on mineral extraction, the bloc’s leaders are leaning heavily toward conciliation over confrontation with Trump, three diplomats and an EU official told POLITICO. The race to come up with a plan follows the U.S. president’s renewed claims that his country “needs” the island territory — and won’t rule out getting it by force. “In the end, we have always come to a common conclusion” with Washington, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said after meeting U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, adding that their talks on the Arctic territory were “encouraging.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he hopes “a mutually acceptable solution” will be found within NATO. The foreign ministers of Greenland and Denmark will meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance alongside Rubio at the White House on Wednesday. They are hoping for “an honest conversation with the administration,” according to another EU diplomat familiar with plans for the meeting. THE ART OF THE DEAL Asked to describe a possible endgame on Greenland, the first EU diplomat said it could be a deal that would give Trump a victory he could sell domestically, such as forcing European countries to invest more in Arctic security as well as a promise that the U.S. could profit from Greenland’s mineral wealth. Trump is primarily looking for a win on Greenland, the diplomat said. “If you can smartly repackage Arctic security, blend in critical minerals, put a big bow on top, there’s a chance” of getting Trump to sign on. “Past experience” — for example when EU allies pledged to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense — showed “this is always how things have gone.” On defense, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte laid the groundwork for a deal when on Monday he said countries in the alliance were discussing ways of bolstering Arctic security. While the shape of the “next steps” touted by Rutte remain to be defined, a ramped-up investment by European NATO members is one possibility that could fit with Trump’s desire to see Europe shoulder greater responsibility for its security. On mineral extraction, details are blurrier. But a deal that guarantees the U.S. a share of profits from extraction of critical raw materials is one possibility, said the EU official. For now, capacity to extract critical raw materials from Greenland is limited. Denmark has spent years seeking investment for long-term projects, with little luck as countries have preferred obtaining minerals at a much cheaper rate on global markets. The EU is planning to more than double its investment in Greenland in its next-long term budget — including funds oriented toward critical raw materials projects. This could be a hook for Trump to accept a co-investment deal. Yet, if Trump’s real aim is the island’s minerals, Danes have been offering the U.S the chance to invest in Greenland for years — an offer refused by American officials, several diplomats said. If Trump’s push on Greenland is about China and Russia, he could easily ask Copenhagen to increase the presence of U.S troops on the island, they also say. A third EU diplomat questioned whether Trump’s real aim was to get into the history books. Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan “has become a geographical concept; he wants to go down in history as the man who has made America ‘greater’ — in geographical terms,” they said. PRESERVING NATO Above all, governments are trying to avoid a military clash, the three diplomats and EU official said. A direct intervention by the U.S. on Greenland — a territory belonging to a member of the EU and NATO — would effectively spell the end of the postwar security order, leaders have warned.  “It would be an unprecedented situation in the history of NATO and any defense alliance,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Tuesday, adding that Berlin is talking with Copenhagen about the options at Europe’s disposal if the U.S. launches a takeover. EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius and Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen both said a military intervention would be the end of NATO. “Everything would stop,” Fredriksen said. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte laid the groundwork for a deal when on Monday he said countries in the alliance were discussing ways of bolstering Arctic security. | Paul Morigi/Getty Images “No provision [in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty] envisions an attack on one NATO ally by another one,” said a NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. It would mean “the end of the alliance,” they added. Trump said “it may be a choice” for the U.S. between pursuing his ambition to take control of Greenland and keeping the alliance intact. Preserving NATO remains the bloc’s top priority, the first EU diplomat said. While both privately and publicly officials have forcefully rejected the idea Europe might “give up” Greenland to the U.S., the comments underscore how desperate governments are to avoid a direct clash with Washington. “This is serious – and Europe is scared,” said a fourth EU diplomat involved in discussions in Brussels on how the bloc responds. A fifth described the moment as “seismic,” because it signaled that the U.S. was ready to rip up a hundred years of ironclad relations.  STILL REELING While European leaders are largely on the same page that a military conflict is unconscionable, how to reach a negotiated settlement is proving thornier. Until the U.S. military strike on Venezuela on Jan. 3, and Trump’s fresh claims the U.S. needs to “have” Greenland, the Europeans were very conspicuously not working on a plan to protect Greenland from Trump — because to do so might risk making the threat real. “It’s been something we’ve anticipated as a potential risk, but something that we can do very little about,” said Thomas Crosbie, a U.S. military expert at the Royal Danish Defense College, which provides training and education for the Danish defense force. “The idea has been that the more we focus on this, and the more we create preparations around resisting this, the more we make it likely to happen. So there’s been anxiety that [by planning for a U.S. invasion] we may accidentally encourage more interest in this, and, you know, kind of escalate,” Crosbie said. But the problem was that, having spent six years studiously avoiding making a plan to respond to Trump’s threats, Europe was left scrabbling for one. Europeans are now faced with figuring out what they have in their “toolbox” to respond to Washington, a former Danish MP aware of discussions said. “The normal rulebook doesn’t work anymore.” Officials consider it the biggest challenge to Europe since the Second World War and they’re not sure what to do.  “We know how we would react if Russia started to behave this way,” the fourth diplomat said. But with the U.S, “this is simply not something we are used to.” Victor Jack, Nette Nöstlinger, Chris Lunday, Zoya Sheftalovich and Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — On Greenland’s southern tip, surrounded by snowy peaks and deep fjords, lies Kvanefjeld — a mining project that shows the giant, barren island is more than just a coveted military base. Beneath the icy ground sits a major deposit of neodymium and praseodymium, rare earth elements used to make magnets that are essential to build wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-tech military equipment. If developed, Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, would become the first European territory to produce these key strategic metals. Energy Transition Minerals, an Australia-based, China-backed mining company, is ready to break ground. But neither Copenhagen, Brussels nor the Greenlandic government have mobilized their state power to make the project happen. In 2009, Denmark handed Greenland’s inhabitants control of their natural resources; 12 years later the Greenlandic government blocked the mine because the rare earths are mixed with radioactive uranium. Since then the project has been in limbo, bogged down in legal disputes. “Kvanefjeld illustrates how political and regulatory uncertainty — combined with geopolitics and high capital requirements — makes even strategically important projects hard to move from potential to production,” Jeppe Kofod, Denmark’s former foreign minister and now a strategic adviser to Energy Transition Minerals, told POLITICO. Kvanefjeld’s woes are emblematic of Greenland’s broader problems. Despite having enough of some rare earth elements to supply as much as 25 percent of the world’s needs — not to mention oil and gas reserves nearly as great as those of the United States, and lots of other potential clean energy metals including copper, graphite and nickel — these resources are almost entirely undeveloped. Just two small mines, extracting gold and a niche mineral called feldspar used in glassmaking and ceramics, are up and running in Greenland. And until very recently, neither Denmark nor the European Union showed much interest in changing the situation. But that was before 2023, when the EU signed a memorandum of understanding with the Greenland government to cooperate on mining projects. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act, proposed the same year, is an attempt to catch up by building new mines both in and out of the bloc that singles out Greenland’s potential. Last month, the European Commission committed to contribute financing to Greenland’s Malmbjerg molybdenum mine in a bid to shore up a supply of the metal for the EU’s defense sector.  But with United States President Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. “The EU has for many years had a limited strategic engagement in Greenland’s critical raw materials, meaning that Europe today risks having arrived late, just as the United States and China have intensified their interest,” Kofod said. In a world shaped by Trump’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy and China’s hyperactive development of clean technology and mineral supply chains, Europe’s neglect of Greenland’s natural wealth is looking increasingly like a strategic blunder. With Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images A HOSTILE LAND That’s not to say building mines in Greenland, with its mile-deep permanent ice sheet, would be easy. “Of all the places in the world where you could extract critical raw materials, [Greenland] is very remote and not very easily accessible,” said Ditte Brasso Sørensen, senior analyst on EU climate and industrial policy at Think Tank Europa, pointing to the territory’s “very difficult environmental circumstances.”  The tiny population — fewer than 60,000 — and a lack of infrastructure also make it hard to build mines. “This is a logistical question,” said Eldur Olafsson, CEO of Amaroq, a gold mining company running one of the two operating mines in Greenland and also exploring rare earths and copper extraction opportunities. “How do you build mines? Obviously, with capital, equipment, but also people. [And] you need to build the whole infrastructure around those people because they cannot only be Greenlandic,” he said.  Greenland also has strict environmental policies — including a landmark 2021 uranium mining ban — which restrict resource extraction because of its impact on nature and the environment. The current government, voted in last year, has not shown any signs of changing its stance on the uranium ban, according to Per Kalvig, professor emeritus at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, a Danish government research organization. Uranium is routinely found with rare earths, meaning the ban could frustrate Greenland’s huge potential as a rare earths producer. It’s a similar story with fossil fuels. Despite a 2007 U.S. assessment that the equivalent of over 30 billion barrels in oil and natural gas lies beneath the surface of Greenland and its territorial waters — almost equal to U.S. reserves — 30 years of oil exploration efforts by a group including Chevron, Italy’s ENI and Shell came to nothing. In 2021 the then-leftist government in Greenland banned further oil exploration on environmental grounds.  Danish geologist Flemming Christiansen, who was deputy director of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland until 2020, said the failure had nothing to do with Greenland’s actual potential as an oil producer. Instead, he said, a collapse in oil prices in 2014 along with the high cost of drilling in the Arctic made the venture unprofitable. Popular opposition only complicated matters, he said. THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT From the skies above Greenland Christiansen sees firsthand the dramatic effects of climate change: stretches of clear water as rising temperatures thaw the ice sheets that for centuries have made exploring the territory a cold, costly and hazardous business. “If I fly over the waters in west Greenland I can see the changes,” he said. “There’s open water for much longer periods in west Greenland, in Baffin Bay and in east Greenland.” Climate change is opening up this frozen land. Climate change is opening up this frozen land. | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images Greenland contains the largest body of ice outside Antarctica, but that ice is melting at an alarming rate. One recent study suggests the ice sheet could cease to exist by the end of the century, raising sea levels by as much as seven meters. Losing a permanent ice cap that is several hundred meters deep, though, “gradually improves the business case of resource extraction, both for … fossil fuels and also critical raw materials,” said Jakob Dreyer, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen.   But exploiting Greenland’s resources doesn’t hinge on catastrophic levels of global warming. Even without advanced climate change, Kalvig, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, argues Greenland’s coast doesn’t differ much from that of Norway, where oil has been found and numerous excavation projects operate.     “You can’t penetrate quite as far inland as you can [in Norway], but once access is established, many places are navigable year-round,” Kalvig said. “So, in that sense, it’s not more difficult to operate mines in Greenland than it is in many parts of Norway, Canada or elsewhere — or Russia for that matter. And this has been done before, in years when conditions allowed.”    A European Commission spokesperson said the EU was now working with Greenland’s government to develop its resources, adding that Greenland’s “democratically elected authorities have long favored partnerships with the EU to develop projects beneficial to both sides.” But the spokesperson stressed: “The fate of Greenland’s raw mineral resources is up to the Greenlandic people and their representatives.” The U.S. may be less magnanimous. Washington’s recent military operation in Venezuela showed that Trump is serious about building an empire on natural resources, and is prepared to use force and break international norms in pursuit of that goal. Greenland, with its vast oil and rare earths deposits, may fit neatly into his vision. Where the Greenlandic people fit in is less clear.

BRUSSELS — The EU has struck a political agreement to overhaul the bloc’s foreign direct investment screening rules, the Council of the EU announced on Thursday, in a move to prevent strategic technology and critical infrastructure from falling into the hands of hostile powers. The updated rules — the first major plank of European Commission President’s Ursula von der Leyen’s economic security strategy — would require all EU countries to systematically monitor investments and further harmonize the way those are screened within the bloc. The agreement comes just over a week after Brussels unveiled a new economic security package. Under the new rules, EU countries would be required to screen investments in dual-use items and military equipment; technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and semiconductors; raw materials; energy, transport and digital infrastructure; and election infrastructure, such as voting systems and databases. As previously reported by POLITICO, foreign entities investing into specific financial services must also be subject to screening by EU capitals. “We achieved a balanced and proportionate framework, focused on the most sensitive technologies and infrastructures, respectful of national prerogatives and efficient for authorities and businesses alike,” said Morten Bødskov, Denmark’s minister for industry, business and financial affairs. It took three round of political talks between the three institutions to seal the update, which was a key priority for the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU. One contentious question was which technologies and sectors should be subject to mandatory screening. Another was how capitals and the European Commission should coordinate — and who gets the final say — when a deal raises red flags. Despite a request from the European Parliament, the Commission will not get the authority to arbitrate disputes between EU countries on specific investment cases. Screening decisions will remain firmly in the purview of national governments. “We’re making progress. The result of our negotiations clearly strengthens the EU’s security while also making life easier for investors by harmonising the Member States’ screening mechanism,” said the lead lawmaker on the file, French S&D Raphaël Glucksmann. “Yet more remains to be done to ensure that investments bring real added value to the EU, so that our market does not become a playground for foreign companies exploiting our dependence on their technology. The Commission has committed to take an initiative; it must now act quickly,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. This story has been updated.

Iris Ferguson is a global adviser to Loom and a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for Arctic and global resilience. Ann Mettler is a distinguished visiting fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy and a former director general of the European Commission. After much pressure, European leaders delayed a decision this week amid division on whether to tighten market access through a “Made in Europe” mandate and redouble efforts to reduce the bloc’s strategic dependencies — particularly on China. This decision may appear technocratic, but the hold-up signals its importance and reflects a larger strategic reality shared across the Atlantic. Security, industry and energy have all fused into a single race to control the systems that power modern economies and militaries. And increasingly, success will hinge on whether the U.S. and Europe can confront this reality together, starting with the one domain that’s shaping every other: energy. While traditional defense spending still grabs headlines, today’s battlefield is being reshaped just as profoundly by energy flows and critical inputs. Advanced batteries for drones, portable power for forward-deployed units and mineral supply chains for next-generation platforms — these all point to the simple truth that technological and operational superiority increasingly depends on who controls the next generation of energy systems. But as Europe and the U.S. look to maintain their edge, they must rethink not just how they produce and move energy, but how to secure the industrial base behind it. Energy sovereignty now sits at the center of our shared security, and in a world where adversaries can weaponize supply chains just as easily as airspace or sea lanes, the future will belong to those who build energy systems that are resilient and interoperable by design. The Pentagon already understands this. It has tested distributed power to shorten vulnerable fuel lines in war games across the Indo-Pacific; it has watched closely how mobile generation units keep the grid alive under Russian attack in Ukraine; and it is exploring ways to deliver energy without relying on exposed logistics via new research on solar power beaming. Each of these cases clearly demonstrates that strategic endurance now depends on energy agility and security. But currently, many of these systems depend on materials and manufacturing chains that are dominated by a strategic rival: From batteries and magnets to rare earth processing, China controls our critical inputs. This isn’t just an economic liability, it’s a national security vulnerability for both Europe and the U.S. We’re essentially building the infrastructure of the future with components that could be withheld, surveilled or compromised. That risk isn’t theoretical. China’s recent export controls on key minerals are already disrupting defense and energy manufacturers — a sharp reminder of how supply chain leverage can be a form of coercion, and of our reliance on a fragile ecosystem for the very technologies meant to make us more independent. So, how do we modernize our energy systems without deepening these unnecessary dependencies and build trusted interdependence among allies instead? The solution starts with a shift in mindset that must then translate into decisive policy action. Simply put, as a matter of urgency, energy and tech resilience must be treated as shared infrastructure, cutting across agencies, sectors and alliances. Defense procurement can be a catalyst here. For example, investing in dual-use technologies like advanced batteries, hardened micro-grids and distributed generation would serve both military needs and broader resilience. These aren’t just “green” tools — they’re strategic assets that improve mission effectiveness, while also insulating us from coercion. And done right, such investment can strengthen defense, accelerate innovation and also help drive down costs. Next, we need to build new coalitions for critical minerals, batteries, trusted manufacturing and cyber-secure infrastructure. Just as NATO was built for collective defense, we now need economic and technological alliances that ensure shared strategic autonomy. Both the upcoming White House initiative to strengthen the supply chain for artificial intelligence technology and the recently announced RESourceEU initiative to secure raw materials illustrate how partners are already beginning to rewire systems for resilience. Germany gave the bloc one such example by moving to reduce its reliance on Chinese-made wind components in favor of European suppliers. | Tan Kexing/Getty Images Finally, we must also address existing dependencies strategically and head-on. This means rethinking how and where we source key materials, including building out domestic and allied capacity in areas long neglected. Germany recently gave the bloc one such example by moving to reduce its reliance on Chinese-made wind components in favor of European suppliers. Moving forward, measures like this need EU-wide adoption. By contrast, in the U.S., strong bipartisan support for reducing reliance on China sits alongside proposals to halt domestic battery and renewable incentives, undercutting the very industries that enhance resilience and competitiveness. This is the crux of the matter. Ultimately, if Europe and the U.S. move in parallel rather than together, none of these efforts will succeed — and both will be strategically weaker as a result. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas recently warned that we must “act united” or risk being affected by Beijing’s actions — and she’s right. With a laser focus on interoperability and cost sharing, we could build systems that operate together in a shared market of close to 800 million people. The real challenge isn’t technological, it’s organizational. Whether it be Bretton Woods, NATO or the Marshall Plan, the West has strategically built together before, anchoring economic resilience with national defense. The difference today is that the lines between economic security, energy access and defense capability are fully blurred. Sustainable, agile energy is now part of deterrence, and long-term security depends on whether the U.S. and Europe can build energy systems that reinforce and secure one another. This is a generational opportunity for transatlantic alignment; a mutually reinforcing way to safeguard economic interests in the face of systemic competition. And to lead in this new era, we must design for it — together and intentionally. Or we risk forfeiting the very advantages our alliance was built to protect.

Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on energy transition, electricity market design, and industrial competitiveness in the EU. More information here The European Union is entering a decisive decade for its energy transformation. With the international race for clean technologies accelerating, geopolitical tensions reshaping markets and competition from other major global economies intensifying, how the EU approaches the transition will determine its economic future. If managed strategically, the EU can drive competitiveness, growth and resilience. If mismanaged, Europe risks losing its industrial base, jobs and global influence.  > If managed strategically, the EU can drive competitiveness, growth and > resilience. If mismanaged, Europe risks losing its industrial base, jobs and > global influence. This message resonated strongly during PKEE Energy Day 2025, held in Brussels on October 14, which brought together more than 350 European policymakers, industry leaders and experts under the theme “Secure, competitive and clean: is Europe delivering on its energy promise?”. One conclusion was clear: the energy transition must serve the economy, not the other way around.  Laurent Louis Photography for PKEE The power sector: the backbone of Europe’s industrial future  The future of European competitiveness will be shaped by its power sector. Without a successful transformation of electricity generation and distribution, other sectors — from steel and chemicals to mobility and digital — will fail to decarbonize. This point was emphasized by Konrad Wojnarowski, Poland’s deputy minister of energy, who described electricity as “vital to development and competitiveness.”  “Transforming Poland’s energy sector is a major technological and financial challenge — but we are on the right track,” he said. “Success depends on maintaining the right pace of change and providing strong support for innovation.” Wojnarowski also underlined that only close cooperation between governments, industry and academia can create the conditions for a secure, competitive and sustainable energy future.  Flexibility: the strategic enabler  The shift to a renewables-based system requires more than capacity additions — it demands a fundamental redesign of how electricity is produced, managed and consumed. Dariusz Marzec, president of the Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) and CEO of PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna, called flexibility “the Holy Grail of the power sector.”  Speaking at the event, Marzec also stated “It’s not about generating electricity continuously, regardless of demand. It’s about generating it when it’s needed and making the price attractive. Our mission, as part of the European economy, is to strengthen competitiveness and ensure energy security for all consumers – not just to pursue climate goals for their own sake. Without a responsible approach to the transition, many industries could relocate outside Europe.”  The message is clear: the clean energy shift must balance environmental ambition with economic reality. Europe cannot afford to treat decarbonization as an isolated goal — it must integrate it into a broader industrial strategy.  > The message is clear: the clean energy shift must balance environmental > ambition with economic reality. The next decade will define success  While Europe’s climate neutrality target for 2050 remains a cornerstone of EU policy, the next five to ten years will determine whether the continent remains globally competitive. Grzegorz Lot, CEO of TAURON Polska Energia and vice-president of PKEE, warned that technology is advancing too quickly for policymakers to rely solely on long-term milestones.  “Technology is evolving too fast to think of the transition only in terms of 2050. Our strategy is to act now — over the next year, five years, or decade,” Lot said. He pointed to the expected sharp decline in coal consumption over the next three years and called for immediate investment in proven technologies, particularly onshore wind.  Lot also raised concerns about structural barriers. “Today, around 30 percent of the price of electricity is made up of taxes. If we want affordable energy and a competitive economy, this must change,” he argued.  Consumers and regulation: the overlooked pillars  A successful energy transition cannot rely solely on investment and infrastructure. It also depends on regulatory stability and consumer participation. “Maintaining competitiveness requires not only investment in green technologies but also a stable regulatory environment and active consumer engagement,” Lot said.  He highlighted the potential of dynamic tariffs, which incentivize demand-side flexibility. “Customers who adjust their consumption to market conditions can pay below the regulated price level. If we want cheap energy, we must learn to follow nature — consuming and storing electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows.”  Strategic investments for resilience  The energy transition is more than a climate necessity. It is a strategic requirement for Europe’s security and economic autonomy. Marek Lelątko, vice-president of Enea, stressed that customer- and market-oriented investment is essential. “We are investing in renewables, modern gas-fired units and energy storage because they allow us to ensure supply stability, affordable prices and greater energy security,” he said.  Grzegorz Kinelski, CEO of Enea and vice-president of PKEE, added: “We must stay on the fast track we are already on. Investments in renewables, storage and CCGT [combined cycle gas turbine] units will not only enhance energy security but also support economic growth and help keep energy prices affordable for Polish consumers.”  The power sector must now be recognized as a strategic enabler of Europe’s industrial future — on par with semiconductors, critical raw materials and defense. As Dariusz Marzec puts it: “The energy transition is not a choice — it is a necessity. But its success will determine more than whether we meet climate targets. It will decide whether Europe remains competitive, prosperous and economically independent in a rapidly changing world.”  > The power sector must now be recognized as a strategic enabler of Europe’s > industrial future — on par with semiconductors, critical raw materials and > defense. Measurable progress, but more is needed  Progress is visible. The power sector accounts for around 30 percent of EU emissions but has already delivered 75 percent of all Emissions Trading System reductions. By 2025, 72 percent of Europe’s electricity will come from low-carbon sources, while fossil fuels will fall to a historic low of 28 percent. And in Poland, in June, renewable energy generation overtook coal for the first time in history.  Still, ambition alone is not enough. In his closing remarks, Marcin Laskowski, vice-president of PKEE and executive vice-president for regulatory affairs at PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna, stressed the link between the power sector and Europe’s broader economic transformation. “The EU’s economic transformation will only succeed if the energy transition succeeds — safely, sustainably and with attractive investment conditions,” he said. “It is the power sector that must deliver solutions to decarbonize industries such as steel, chemicals and food production.”  A collective European project  The event in Brussels — with the participation of many high-level speakers, including Mechthild Wörsdörfer, deputy director general of DG ENER; Tsvetelina Penkova, member of the European Parliament and vice-chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy; Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, member of the European Parliament; Catherine MacGregor; CEO of ENGIE and vice-president of Eurelectric; and Claude Turmes, former minister of energy of Luxembourg — highlighted a common understanding: the energy transition is not an isolated environmental policy, it is a strategic industrial project. Its success will depend on coordinated action across EU institutions, national governments and industry, as well as predictable regulation and financing.  Europe’s ability to remain competitive, resilient and prosperous will hinge on whether its power sector is treated not as a cost to be managed, but as a foundation to be strengthened. The next decade is a window of opportunity — and the choices made today will shape Europe’s economic landscape for decades to come. 

An emerging U.S.-China detente gives European leaders breathing room to find a strategy on trade, raw materials and the war in Ukraine — but the thaw between the two great powers risks pushing European interests to the side.   President Donald Trump and his counterpart Xi Jinping agreed to a significant de-escalation in their trade spat during a head-to-head Thursday in South Korea, pausing export controls on rare earth magnets and other critical raw materials for 12 months.   While the move is good news for European companies that have been caught in the crossfire, other sticking points in the Europe-China relationship will be harder to resolve, even with the gift of time.  Brussels, under pressure from Trump and in pursuit of its own strategic interests, is trying — without notable success — to sway Beijing from supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine.   At the same time the EU is doing its best to keep the temperature down in its longstanding trade standoff with China, whose intensity has ratcheted up recently with the imposition of limits on exports of critical raw materials and microchips. Both measures have had an immediate negative impact on European industry, particularly automakers which were already struggling prior to the restrictions.  Fears of lasting, irreversible damage to Europe’s industries have led the EU to take a more conciliatory stance in its trade standoff, emphasizing engagement and dialogue rather than punitive measures.  Yet Chinese officials have balked at the slow and uncoordinated pace of discussions with the EU, leading Beijing to drop Europe down its list of priorities, according to Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group.  “The EU is a secondary at best, maybe a tertiary or a non-consideration for both Washington and Beijing in these negotiations,” Chan told POLITICO.  ‘LET THEM FIGHT’ The top political priority for the EU is ending the war in Ukraine — something that Trump while on the campaign trail promised to do within his first 24 hours in office. Almost a year into his term, the fighting continues, aided by China propping up Russia’s economy through investments and oil purchases.  At the urging of the White House, the EU included Chinese banks and refineries in its two latest rounds of sanctions targeting Russia, arguing the entities were helping Moscow evade sanctions. This prompted an angry response from top Chinese officials including Prime Minister Li Qiang, who branded the sanctions “unacceptable” during a meeting with European Council President Antonio Costa in Asia this week, per an EU official.  European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, have both called out Beijing’s support for Moscow in explicit terms, with the former saying in July that it has a “direct and dangerous impact on European security.”  The EU’s latest sanctions prompted an angry response from top Chinese officials including Prime Minister Li Qiang, who branded them “unacceptable” at a meeting with European Council President Antonio Costa, per an EU official. | Pool photo by Vincent Thian via AFP/Getty Images Ukraine had hoped Trump would pressure Beijing to stop buying Russian oil, but the American president told media on Air Force One that the issue was not on the table — although he did say the war in Ukraine “came up very strongly,” with both sides hoping to find an end to the fighting.   “He’s going to help us and we’re going to work together on Ukraine,” Trump said, referring to the Chinese president. INDUSTRIES HELD HOSTAGE While China’s export controls were not directed at the EU, the bloc’s companies faced long delays and sharp price hikes in contending with the subsequent shortage of raw materials and magnets. China accounts for 98 percent of the EU’s rare earth permanent magnets.  The geopolitical firestorm sent the European Commission into overdrive to secure its own supplies of the magnets and launch a plan to diversify Europe’s supply chain by the end of the year.   But the EU has been here before. Just two years ago it passed the Critical Raw Materials Act to solve this exact problem, and yet all the deals that have been signed have failed to deliver actual products. Its latest scheme is big on ideas and short on specifics.   The one-year pause on export controls agreed between Trump and Xi affords the EU some time to put that plan into action and leverage its other alliances — including efforts unfolding at the G7 this week with Canada, along with the U.K., Italy, France and Germany seeking to diversify away from China’s grip.  But for companies looking for clarity, the catch is that none of the agreements made between Trump and Xi are binding.  “As long as we don’t see any details hammered out and put on paper it leaves a lot of room for both sides backtracking and applying various other conditions, so I don’t think that this is really settled,” said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.  SECURITY CONCERNS  In the U.K., pressure is expected to build for policymakers to use the temporary U.S. truce to minimize the risks from China.  British PM Keir Starmer has thus far failed to resolve longstanding tensions between “securocrats” in parliament and Whitehall, who want to see a tougher stance toward Beijing, and those who argue for a closer embrace in order to boost inward investment. Prominent members of the government have traveled to Beijing in pursuit of strengthened ties since Starmer took office, despite his overriding foreign policy aim of cleaving close to Trump.  China has become a particular sore point for Starmer in recent weeks due to the collapse of the prosecution of two men accused of spying for Beijing, while ministers have yet to decide the fate of a planned Chinese “super-embassy” in London.  Back in the EU, divisions among member countries over how to counter China’s power — and any subsequent retribution — make a unified stance toward Beijing on trade or dumping measures unlikely.   Brussels got a glimpse of its internal factions when it slapped duties on made-in-China electric vehicles following an anti-subsidy investigation. Automakers and their political benefactors fear Chinese brands will dump their overcapacity in the European market, bringing a severe price war to Europe’s shores.   Yet for all the handwringing over how to protect domestic automakers, the votes of EU capitals on the duties revealed how economically exposed each is to China, with Germany launching a last-minute appeal to stop the duties.  The Netherlands is the latest EU member on the outs with China after Dutch authorities seized control of chipmaker Nexperia, prompting Beijing to hit back with export controls on Nexperia’s Chinese-produced chips. The shortage could halt production lines across Europe in less than a week, showcasing just how economically dependent Europe has become on China.  LET’S BE FRIENDS From the jump, Trump framed his sojourn to Asia as a “G2” summit, stoking fears that any deal would sideline other countries or that “British and European trade priorities could be overlooked or traded away without consultation,” said David Taylor, director of policy and programs at Asia House.  Sensing its declining influence in the Trump-Xi bromance, the EU is looking to bolster its trade ties elsewhere.  Trade chief Maroš Šefčovič is traveling to Australia in late November to chair an inaugural dialogue between the EU and the 12 members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership bloc, two diplomats told POLITICO. The dialogue is meant to deepen economic and political ties between the EU and countries keen to maintain established global trade rules.  Brussels, under pressure from Donald Trump and in pursuit of its own strategic interests, is trying to sway Beijing from supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine. | Jim Watson/Getty Images Brussels will have a chance to do just that when it hosts a delegation of high-level Chinese officials on Friday. They’re expected to meet with the Commission’s trade deputy-director general, Denis Redonnet, and other senior officials.  Experts caution that Europe will need to maintain pressure on Beijing to get any movement on its priorities.   “Europe cannot just simply be waiting to see what happens on talks between [the] United States and China,” said Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a former director at the Commission’s trade department. “It needs to develop its own channel of dialogue with China.” 

BRUSSELS — In the midst of a geopolitical storm, Brussels is racing to put together a new plan by the end of this year to diversify European supply of so-called critical raw materials — such as lithium and copper — away from China.  The thing is: We’ve been here before. So far, the European Commission has provided few details on its new plan, beyond that it would touch upon joint purchasing, stockpiling, recycling of resources and new partnerships. It already addressed those measures two years ago in its first initiative on the issue, the Critical Raw Materials Act.  Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen has been forced to act by Beijing’s expansion and tightening of export controls on rare earths and other critical minerals this month, as trade tensions with Washington escalated. Europe was caught in the crossfire — China accounts for 99 percent of the EU’s supply of the 17 rare earths, and 98 percent of its rare earth permanent magnets. The new “RESourceEU” plan is expected to follow a similar model to the REPowerEU plan, under which the Commission in 2022 proposed investing €225 billion to diversify energy supply routes after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.  That has European industry daring to hope that Brussels will do more than just recycle an old initiative and address the main obstacles to diversifying the bloc’s supply chains of minerals it needs for everything from renewable energy to defense applications. The biggest of them all? A lack of cash to back new mining, processing and manufacturing initiatives, both within and outside the EU. “It’s all still very much in its infancy,” said Florian Anderhuber, deputy director general of lobby group Euromines. “We hope that there will be a bigger push that goes beyond the implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act,” he added. “It doesn’t help anyone if this is just a label for things that are already in the pipeline.” CODEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP The EU should not count on any trade reprieve that may result from U.S. President Donald Trump’s meeting with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Thursday. After all, Beijing has shown time and again that it has no reservations about weaponizing economic dependencies. The key question is whether, this time around, pressure will remain high enough for the EU to mobilize brainpower and assets at the kind of scale it did when it sought to break the bloc’s decades-old reliance on Russian oil and gas. “Europe cannot do things the same way anymore,” von der Leyen said as she announced the initiative last weekend. “We learned this lesson painfully with energy; we will not repeat it with critical materials. So it is time to speed up and take the action that is needed.” “Europe cannot do things the same way anymore,” von der Leyen said as she announced the initiative last weekend. | Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images In the here and now, the EU wants to persuade a visiting Chinese delegation at talks in Brussels on Friday to speed up export approvals for its top raw materials importers. In parallel, energy and environment ministers from the G7 group of industrialized nations are slated to wargame how to de-risk their mineral supply chains in Toronto, Canada, on Thursday and Friday. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY When the Commission unveiled its first grand plan to break over-reliance on China in 2023 — the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) — industry leaders and analysts mostly lamented one thing: a lack of funding on the table.  “Money has been a real bottleneck for Europe’s raw materials agenda,” said Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Mining, processing, recycling, and stockpiling all need serious financing.” If the EU fails to free up more resources, experts warn that it is bound to fall short of the goal set in the CRMA, of extracting at least 10 percent of its annual consumption of select minerals by the end of the decade, with no more than 65 percent of some raw materials coming from a single country. It’s a steep target — especially for rare earths, where Beijing has over decades built up a de facto monopoly. While the EU executive has selected strategic projects both within and outside the EU that should benefit from faster permitting than their usual lead times of 10 to 15 years to production, those efforts are yet to bear fruit. “To finance such projects, the next EU budget must provide substantial, dedicated [Critical Raw Material] funding, and financial institutions must deploy innovative de-risking and financing tools,” the European Initiative for Energy Security argues in a new report, calling for a “permanent European Minerals Investment Network.”  “To finance such projects, the next EU budget must provide substantial, dedicated [Critical Raw Material] funding, and financial institutions must deploy innovative de-risking and financing tools,” the European Initiative for Energy Security argues in a new report. | Aris Oikonomou/AFP via Getty Images The REPowerEU plan — a package of documents, including legal acts, recommendations, guidelines and strategies — was mostly financed by loans left over from the bloc’s pandemic recovery program. Similarly, RESourceEU must become “resource strategy backed by real funding,” said Hildegard Bentele, a member of the European Parliament who’s been working on critical minerals for years.  “This requires a European Raw Materials Fund, modelled on successful instruments in several Member States, to support strategic projects across the entire value chain, from extraction to recycling,” the German Christian Democrat said. THAT’LL COST YOU It’s about more than just throwing money at the problem: The Commission’s haste in rolling out its plan is raising doubts that it will meet the needs of a highly complex market — along with concerns that environmental safeguards will be neglected. “As long as European industries can buy cheaper materials from China, other producers do not stand a chance,” warned Gehrke.  In Toronto, G7 ministers will launch a new Critical Minerals Production Alliance (CMPA), a Canadian-led initiative that seeks to secure “transparent, democratic, and environmentally responsible critical minerals,” and also to counter market manipulation of supply chains, said a senior Canadian government official.  This would suggest creating so-called standards-based markets that are ring-fenced to protect critical minerals produced responsibly, to agreed environmental and social standards. A price floor would be set within that market, while minerals produced elsewhere — at lower prices but also lower standards — would face a tariff.  Beyond the immediate funding issues, ramping up mining in the EU and its neighbourhood also comes at a high societal cost. With local resistance to new mines, usually linked to environmental and social concerns, being one of the key obstacles to new projects, investors are often hesitant to pour money into a project that risks being derailed shortly after. “The EU is choosing geopolitical expediency over human rights and ecological integrity, sacrificing frontline communities for a strategy that is neither sustainable nor just, instead of building a durable and values-based autonomy that invests in systemic circularity and rights-based partnerships,” said Diego Marin, a senior policy officer for raw materials and resource justice at the European Environmental Bureau, an NGO.  Jakob Weizman and Camille Gijs contributed reporting from Brussels. Zi-Ann Lum contributed reporting from Toronto, Canada.

The European Commission will present a new plan to break the EU’s dependencies on China for critical raw materials, President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Saturday. The EU executive chief warned of “clear acceleration and escalation in the way interdependencies are leveraged and weaponized,” in a speech Saturday at the Berlin Global Dialogue. In recent months, China has tightened export controls over rare earths and other critical materials. The Asian powerhouse controls close to 70 percent of the world’s rare earths production and almost all of the refining. The EU’s response “must match the scale of the risks we face in this area,” von der Leyen said, adding that “we are focusing on finding solutions with our Chinese counterparts.” Brussels and Beijing are set to discuss the export controls issue during meetings next week. “But we are ready to use all of the instruments in our toolbox to respond if needed,” the head of the EU executive warned. This suggests that the Commission could make use of the EU’s most powerful trade weapon — the Anti-Coercion Instrument. This comes after French President Emmanuel Macron called on the EU executive to trigger the trade bazooka at a meeting of EU leaders on Thursday. His push has not met with much support from the other leaders around the table. NEW BREAKAWAY PLAN To break the EU’s over-reliance on China for critical materials imports and refining, the Commission will put forward a “RESourceEU plan,” von der Leyen said. She did not provide much detail about the plan, nor when it would be presented. But she said it would follow a similar model as the REPowerEU plan that the Commission introduced in 2022 to phase out Russian fossil fuels after Moscow’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Under REPowerEU, the Commission proposed investing €225 billion to diversify energy supply routes, accelerate the deployment of renewables, improve grids interconnections across the bloc and boost the EU hydrogen market, among other measures. The EU executive also put forward a legislative proposal, which is currently under negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council, to ban Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. The aim of RESourceEU “is to secure access to alternative sources of critical raw materials in the short, medium and long term for our European industry,” von der Leyen explained. “It starts with the circular economy. Not for environmental reasons. But to exploit the critical raw materials already contained in products sold in Europe,” she said. She added that the EU “will speed up work on critical raw materials partnerships with countries like Ukraine and Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Chile and Greenland.” “Europe cannot do things the same way anymore. We learned this lesson painfully with energy; we will not repeat it with critical materials,” von der Leyen said.