美國戰略與國際研究中心（CSIS）：關鍵礦物供應鏈的地緣政治研究報告（英文版）（38頁）.pdf

《美國戰略與國際研究中心（CSIS）：關鍵礦物供應鏈的地緣政治研究報告（英文版）（38頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《美國戰略與國際研究中心（CSIS）：關鍵礦物供應鏈的地緣政治研究報告（英文版）（38頁）.pdf（38頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply ChainsAUTHORJane NakanoMARCH 2021A Report of the CSIS Energy Security and Climate Change ProgramIII | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply ChainsAbout CSIS The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy r

2、esearch organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the worlds greatest challenges.Thomas J. Pritzker was named chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 2015, succeeding former U.S. senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). Founded in 1962, CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, who has served as presiden

3、t and chief executive officer since 2000.CSISs purpose is to define the future of national security. We are guided by a distinct set of valuesnonpartisanship, independent thought, innovative thinking, cross-disciplinary scholarship, integrity and professionalism, and talent development. CSISs values

4、 work in concert toward the goal of making real-world impact.CSIS scholars bring their policy expertise, judgment, and robust networks to their research, analysis, and recommendations. We organize conferences, publish, lecture, and make media appearances that aim to increase the knowledge, awareness

5、, and salience of policy issues with relevant stakeholders and the interested public. CSIS has impact when our research helps to inform the decisionmaking of key policymakers and the thinking of key influencers. We work toward a vision of a safer and more prosperous world.CSIS does not take specific

6、 policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). 2021 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to thank CSIS colleagues Sarah Ladislaw and Nikos Tsafos for feedb

7、ack and Ian Barlow for graphics assistance. The author would also like to thank Brandon Tracy of the U.S. Congressional Research Service and Marco Giuli of the Brussels School of Governance for reviewing a draft.This report was made possible by the generous support of the Japan External Trade Organi

8、zation. Center for Strategic & International Studies1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20036202-887-0200 | www.csis.orgIV | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply ChainsContents1 | Introduction 12 | The Chinese Dominance of the Global Critical Minerals Supply Chains 43 | Securing the

9、Critical Minerals Supply Chains: Various Strategies and Policy Steps 74 | United States 9Status of U.S. Supply Chains 9U.S. Strategy and Responses 115 | European Union 15Status of EU Supply Chains 15EU Strategy and Responses 166 | Japan 19Status of Japans Supply Chains 19Japans Strategy and Response

10、s 207 | Conclusion 238 | About the Author 26 1 | Jane Nakano1IntroductionConfronted with the rising threat of climate change, many governments around the world have launched efforts to electrify their energy system while decarbonizing their electric power supply. This trend has led to an increased d

11、emand for non-carbon-emitting sources of electricity and energy storage technologies, and in turn has grown the demand for these technologies component minerals and materials. According to a World Bank study, the demand for component minerals for electric storage batteriessuch as aluminum, cobalt, l

12、ithium, manganese, and nickelcould rise by more than 450 percent by 2050 if clean energy technology is deployed at a level consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement goal of keeping the rise in atmospheric temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.1 Clean energy technology components have diffe

13、rent degrees of reliance on a range of minerals, which in turn have different criticality profiles informed by factors such as price volatility and the stability of the supplier country. Rare-earth elements, such as neodymium, dysprosium and praseodymium, are key ingredients of permanent magnets (po

14、werful magnets that do not lose their magnetic fields), which are used in high-performance wind turbines.2 Borates, gallium, germanium, and indium are also important ingredients in solar photovoltaics (PV), while cobalt and lithium are required for the lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles

15、 (EVs). Although these minerals are available globally, some are highly concentrated in a few countries. For example, about half the global supply of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC); over 80 percent of the global supply of lithium comes from Australia, Chile, and Argenti

16、na; and 60 percent of the global supply of manganese comes from South Africa, China, and Australia.3 Most notably, over 85 percent of the global supply of rare-earth elements comes from China. Supply chain security for the minerals and materials needed in clean energy technologies has become a strat

17、egic issue, not only because it could affect the pace of clean energy technology deployment around 2 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chainsthe world but also because clean energy technology has become the latest frontier for the geoeconomic rivalries sparked by Chinas competitive manuf

18、acturing sector. No longer a simple mineral producer or component assembler, China is emerging as a higher-value manufacturer that requires a growing volume of the minerals and metals that are considered key to clean energy technology manufacturing. This development has increased the pressure for ot

19、her major economies dependent on mineral imports to secure their critical minerals supply chains.An equally important factor is that China appears to recognize the strength of its critical minerals supply chains as geopolitical leverage. For example, during one of the heightened phases of the U.S.-C

20、hina trade war in 2019, President Xi Jinping of China and his top trade negotiator toured a rare-earth processing facility in Jiangxi Province, which is known for its rare-earth wealth. The visit was widely interpreted as a reminder to the United States that China has leverage over the rare-earth su

21、pply chains, bringing back the memory of Chinas embargo on rare-earth exports to Japan, which occurred over a territorial dispute in the fall of 2010. Additionally, Xi Jinpings call in April 2020 for the need to enhance global supply chains dependence on China and “develop powerful retaliation and d

22、eterrence capabilities against supply cut-offs by foreign parties” has only fueled concern among Western policymakers that heavy economic dependence on China for something as critical as rare-earth minerals may translate into a vulnerability that can be exploited by China in the event of a clash bet

23、ween China and the West.4 Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed fragility in the global supply chains for not only pharmaceuticals and crucial medical supplies but also some critical minerals. For instance, the transport of cobalt produced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was delayed

24、 in South Africa for months following the South African governments imposition of a strict lockdown in the second quarter of 2020.5 A confluence of these developments has elevated the strategic importance of securing critical minerals supply chains, especially to a group of economies that are home t

25、o innovators and manufacturers. Some governments have modernized or expanded existing strategies to address the challenge, while others have outlined action plans or articulated their perspectives on only specific portions of the supply chains. The author identified a select set of economies whose a

26、pproach to the security of critical minerals supply chains is likely to be consequential in terms of geopolitics. Through a literature survey and interviews, the author reviewed the statuses of these economies critical minerals supply chains as well as their strategies to address the supply security

27、 concern. This report illuminates the key economic, security, and geopolitical factors behind the recent evolution of these economies strategies and their approaches to the security of critical minerals supply chains.Key observations include: The security of critical minerals supply chains is a stra

28、tegic issue, in light of the expected exponential demand growth led by clean energy technology deployment around the world. Sustained political commitment to technological innovation is essential to managing the growing competition over resources and clean energy manufacturing value chains. Chinas d

29、evelopment of midstream and downstream capacities has turned it from a supplier of raw minerals and materials to a key consumer of them. Chinas commanding position along critical minerals supply chains is a key factor that shapes other economies strategic responses. 3 | Jane Nakano Different economi

30、es are motivated by different concerns reflecting the heterogeneity in their resource endowment profiles and industrial structures. The United States appears most concerned about import dependence that can be exploited geopolitically, while the European Union and Japan appear primarily concerned wit

31、h the effects of supply disruptions on their industrial competitiveness. Recent efforts to strengthen critical minerals supply chains include the United States development of midstream capacities, the European Unions orchestrated support for its battery sector, and Japans stockpile modernization and

32、 resource development abroad. Competition over critical minerals supplies is also rising between import-dependent economies. Such competition could hinder effective international partnerships that might otherwise mitigate existing risks to supply chains.4 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Suppl

33、y ChainsChina has become a dominant stakeholder in the global supply chains for critical minerals and clean energy goods. In solar PV manufacturing (which broadly consists of the manufacturing of polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells, and modules), China is home to over 90 percent of the worlds wafer m

34、anufacturing capacity, and Chinese companiesregardless of factory locationown two-thirds of the global polysilicon manufacturing capacity and 72 percent of the global module manufacturing capacity.6 In lithium-ion battery manufacturing, China has a majority of processing capacity for key components

35、(such as cathodes, anodes, separators, and electrolytes), as well as almost 80 percent of global battery cell manufacturing capacity.7 Although less dominant, China still has a strong presence in the wind turbine value chain: it is home to about half of total manufacturing plants for nacelles, blade

36、s, wind towers, turbine generators, and gearboxes.8 Chinas emergence as a major force along the clean energy technology value chain is partly the result of their resource wealth, as China is home to roughly one-third of global rare-earth reserves. However, this emergence also represents the culminat

37、ion of long-term industrial policy, Chinas capacity to execute it, and advantages derived from a lag in extractive industry regulations.9 Where it lacks access to resources, China has invested in mining projects abroad. For example, since nearly 60 percent of cobalt ore comes from the DRC, Chinese e

38、nterprises invest in cobalt mines and participate in cobalt smelting projects there to secure stable access to cobalt resources.10 China has come to account for 72 percent of the global cobalt refining capacity.11 The consumption of cobalt by Chinawhere approximately three-quarters of supply is used

39、 in lithium battery manufacturingis forecast to almost double between 2017 and 2023.12 Also, while China is only one of five countries that produce lithium (another key mineral for lithium-ion battery production), it accounts for roughly 60 percent of global lithium refining capacity.13 China also l

40、eads the rest of the world in its capacity to 2The Chinese Dominance of the Global Critical Minerals Supply Chains5 | Jane Nakanoprocess these refined materials into components, mainly cathodes (producing 52 percent of the global cathode supply), anodes (78 percent), separators (66 percent), and ele

41、ctrolytes (62 percent).14 In 2018, for the first time in over three decades, China became a net importer of at least seven rare earths, as domestic output declined due to a government crackdown on illegal production.15Chinas recognition of the strategic value of non-fuel minerals and their industria

42、l applications dates back at least to the seventh National Five-Year Plan for Rare Earth Industry (19861990), which made it a priority to “develop research and production of advanced rare-earth applications and new materials (e.g., permanent magnets and lasers) for domestic consumption and export.”1

43、6 The Chinese government spurred the development of midstream and downstream sectors through investment policies that allowed foreign investment in rare-earth smelting with the import of advanced technologies and machinery and encouraged foreign investment and joint ventures in producing advanced pr

44、oducts downstreamall while prohibiting foreign investment and joint ventures in the mining sector.17State-sponsored investment in research and development took off early in China. By 1985, there were more than 300 research institutes and university research centers in China working on research proje

45、cts related to rare-earth mining, smelting, and applications.18 China has filed more rare-earth patents than the rest of the world combined.19 Low-cost minerals and supply of materials attracted many foreign firms to relocate to China, a situation that not only afforded these firms access to the gro

46、wing Chinese market but also benefitted the Chinese by enhancing Chinas downstream manufacturing capacity through technology transfer.Clean Energy Mineral Supply Chains and Top Global SuppliersChina32%Africa21%L.A.21%Other26%Raw MaterialsCo, Li, C, Nb Ni, Mn, Si, Cu, Ti, Al, P, F, Sn, Iron oreProces

47、sed MaterialsCathode materials, Anode materialsChina52%Japan31%EU8%China52%Japan31%EU9%ComponentsCathodes, Anodes, Electrolytes, SeparatorsAssemblyLi-ion cellsChina66%U.S.13%Asia13%China54%L.A.29%Raw MaterialsAl, B, Cr, Cu, Dy, Pb, Mn, Mo, Nd, Ni, Nb, Pr, Iron oreProcessed MaterialsAluminum, NdFeB m

48、agnets, Steel,Copper wire, Carbon fibers, Glass fibersChina41%EU12%ComponentsNacelles, BladesAssemblyChina23%Wind turbinesAsia6%Other11%U.S.9%China56%EU20%U.S.11%EU58%China53%Africa13%Other27%Raw MaterialsAl, B, Cd, Cu, Ga, Ge, In, Fe, Pb, Mo, Ni, Se, Si, Ag, Te, Sn, ZnProcessed MaterialsSi-metal, P

49、olysilicon, Cu refined, Al, CdTeChina50%EU5%China89%ComponentsCrystalline / amorphous Si Cells,WaferAssemblySi modules, Thin film Si / non-Si modulesChina70%Asia8%U.S.7%U.S.6%Asia1%EU1%Batteries, Wind, and Solar PV* Excluding China and JapanSource: Created by Ian Barlow based on data from European C

50、ommission, Critical materials for strategic technologies and sectors in the EU - a foresight study, 2020 (Brussels: European Commission, 2020). * Latin America*energy security andclimate change program6 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply ChainsChina has also employed export and production

51、 quotas. From 1999 to 2014, China imposed an annual export quota. The export quota system was structured to favor firms that could create high additional value.20 Moreover, in 2006, China introduced production quotas on rare-earth concentrates, with the stated goal of controlling total production an

52、d illegal mining. These actions caused a spike in rare-earth prices, given Chinas strong position in the global supply. Chinas export restrictions continued until 2014 when a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel agreed with the United States, European Union, and Japan that Chinas

53、export duties and export quotas on rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum constituted a breach of WTO rules.21 More recently, the Chinese government identified “new materials,” such as permanent magnets, to be among the 10 industries targeted for government support under the Made in China 2025 initia

54、tive. This industrial initiative, released in 2015, aims to upgrade Chinas manufacturing capacity by 2025 through focused allocation of resources, such as beneficial regulations, tax incentives, and financing by public banks.22 The development of the new materials industry is seen as a foundation fo

55、r the successful development of Chinese manufacturing capacity in nine other industries, such as EVs, new information technology, and aerospace.23 Chinas heavy focus on expanding its technology innovation capacity is likely to continue until at least 2035a year identified by the Chinese Communist Pa

56、rtys Central Committee in October 2020 to be when China becomes the global technology leader.24 Since the Chinese government has been promoting domestic downstream industry, the countrys consumption of rare-earth minerals has been on the rise. Between 2004 and 2014, Chinas consumption of rare-earth

57、minerals grew at an average annual rate of 7.5 percent, while the rare-earth mineral consumption of the rest of the world decreased by 3.8 percent, raising Chinas share of the global consumption from 43 to 70 percent.25 Moreover, Chinas production of rare-earth end-use products grew by about 70 perc

58、ent between 2005 and 2015; by 2015, domestic consumption accounted for over 80 percent of the domestic production of rare earths.26 In order to better position itself to weather potential supply disruptions, Chinas National Mineral Resource Plan for 20162020 called for establishing a range of capabi

59、lities, including a warning mechanism for the rare-earth industry to safeguard its supply chains against various causes of potential disruptions and a more systematic demand and supply analysis on mineral products.27 More recently, in October 2020, China passed an export-control law that would restr

60、ict exports of controlled items to protect Chinas interest and security. Although the government has not elaborated or clarified which items and technologies will fall under this law, rare earths are among the strong suspects.28 Furthermore, in early January 2021, China introduced draft legislation

61、to “reinforce the protection of its rare earth resources” and “strengthen full industrial chain regulation” by strengthening the approval process for mining and processing projects, as well as the rare-earth trade.29 In reporting this proposal, the state-run China Daily noted that China considers ra

62、re-earth elements to be “prized resources” with “irreplaceable significance for the upgrade of traditional industries, and the development of emerging industries.”30 These developments may also reflect Chinas unease that the United States and other major economies are beginning to seriously address

63、their current vulnerability with regards to critical minerals supply chains. 7 | Jane Nakano3Securing the Critical Minerals Supply ChainsVarious Strategies and Policy StepsA confluence of factorsincluding growing competition over critical mineral supplies and clean energy manufacturing, fragility in

64、 the global supply chains, and rising competition from Chinahas led a few economies to review the state of their critical minerals supply chains in recent years. Several of them have updated their strategies, expanded policy tools to address the challenge, or introduced action plans to improve or pr

65、eserve the security of critical minerals supply chains. For example, India is noteworthy for its growing political focus on developing clean energy manufacturing capacity. A 2016 report released by Indias Department of Science and Technology presented an assessment of the effects the security of cri

66、tical minerals supply may have on Indias manufacturing sector, given the growing gap between the rising demand for technology-enabled products and its domestic manufacturing capacity.31 India has been striving to grow its clean energy manufacturing base, as exemplified by the Make in India program.

67、This industrial initiative, combined with goals to grow the installed capacity of renewable energy from about 90 gigawatts (GW) currently to 450 GW and fully electrify the mobility sector by 2030, seems to be driving Indias interest in developing relationships with resource-rich economies to secure

68、access to critical minerals.32 For example, India concluded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Australia in June 2020 to secure supplies of critical minerals from Australia.33 Australia is another major stakeholder in the global supply chains for critical minerals. Australia is rich in energy

69、and natural resources, including many critical minerals, and home to some of the top companies in global mining. The Australian government seeks to leverage ongoing efforts at the state and territory levels, such as Western Australias initiative to capitalize on local minerals for the lithium-ion ba

70、ttery industry and New South Waless effort to attract investment in metals and rare-earth resources.34 In 2019, the Australian government issued its Critical Minerals Strategy 8 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chainsin an effort to strengthen its mining and processing capacities by pro

71、moting investment and incentivizing innovation.35 While the universe of economies seeking to enhance their competitiveness along the critical minerals supply chain is growing, this report focuses on the United States, the European Union, and Japan, evaluating the similarities, differences, and evolu

72、tion of their respective critical minerals strategies.Table 1: Comparing the Strategies/ResponsesUnited StatesEuropean UnionJapanTerm Used in Strategic DocumentsCritical minerals.Critical and raw materials.Rare metals.Key Interests/ Considerations Defense requirements; economic security; industrial

73、competitiveness. No specific focus on clean energy sector.Industrial competitiveness in clean energy sector. Political commitment to climate neutrality. Industrial competitiveness. Research and Innovation FocusDomestic resource survey capacity; separation and processing; substitute development; recy

74、cling technologies.Separation and processing; substitute development; recycling technologies.Substitute development; recycling technologies. International Cooperation FocusCooperation is alliance-oriented. The tone is confrontational against China. Cooperation within and near the European Union is i

75、mportant.Trade and investment with resource-rich countries. Funding to resource-rich developing countries for capacity building. Domestic Land Access Issue FocusPermitting.Permitting.Not applicable.Workforce Issue FocusExtractive industry workers and processing expertise.Extractive industry workers

76、and processing expertise. Expertise in substitution and recycling technology researchers. Critical Minerals List35 entries on the list. No regularly scheduled criticality assessments. Updates per the White House. The most recent list was published in 2019. 30 entries on the list. Regularly scheduled

77、 criticality assessments, every three years. The most recent list was published in 2020.34 entries on the list. No regularly scheduled criticality assessments. METI updated the list sometime since 2014. StockpileFor DOD use, managed by the DLA.36None at the EU or EU member nation level.37 Stockpilin

78、g since 1983, for industry use; national (70%) and private industry stocks (30%) both managed by JOGMEC.Note: These country strategy characteristics are relative and dynamic, and they are not to be viewed as comprehensive.9 | Jane Nakano4United StatesStatus of U.S. Supply ChainsThe United States has

79、 a wealth of mineral resources and a strong tradition of mining. In fact, the United States was once the global leader in the production of the rare-earth minerals key to the high-performance magnets needed in clean energy technologies. From the mid-1960s through the 1980s, the Mountain Pass mine in

80、 California was the largest source of rare-earth oxides in the world. In addition to Mountain Pass, CA, other identified rare-earth deposits include Bokan Mountain, AK; Bear Lodge, WY; Round Top, TX; and Elk Creek, NE.38 However, U.S. presence in the upstream and midstream of critical minerals suppl

81、y chains is severely limited today. Several decades of globalization, where countries have sought greater economic benefits from closer integration of supply chains and trade, have led the United States to move much of its manufacturing base abroad. These forces of globalization, together with U.S.

82、policymakers decisions to prioritize domestic environmental protection over import-dependence concerns, have shifted the extraction and production of some key minerals, such as rare earths, outside of U.S. borders.39 By 2000, the United States had become almost entirely dependent on overseas imports

83、particularly from Chinafor separated rare-earth oxides. The Chinese rare-earth embargo of 2010 and the resultant volatility of rare-earth prices sharpened the U.S. focus on critical minerals supply chain security, as well as on the geopolitical consequences of unchecked dependency on a single source

84、 for these mineral and material supplies. By then, the sole U.S. rare-earth mining project at Mountain Pass had become dormant.40 The subsequent decade saw limited progress in reducing dependency. For example, Molycorp reopened its Mountain Pass mine in 2012, but in the face of price declines due to

85、 the ample Chinese supply of many of the rare-10 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chainsearth elements, its operation became economically unsustainable, resulting in bankruptcy in 2015.41 While Mountain Pass has resumed operation under its new owner, MP Materials, all the rare-earth con

86、centrates from the Mountain Pass are currently exported for separation and processing, as the United States lacks the domestic capability to separate rare-earth concentrates into rare-earth ores and process them into rare-earth metals at a commercial scale.42 From 2015 to 2018, Chinese supplies acco

87、unted for 80 percent of U.S. imports of rare-earth compounds and metals; additionally, U.S. imports from other countries are largely derived from Chinese rare-earth inputs.43A decade after Chinas rare-earth embargo, however, U.S. momentum to address critical minerals supply chain challenges is on th

88、e rise. Recent industry undertakings to reactivate domestic supply chains include attempts by MP Materials and Lynas to establish processing capabilities for light rare-earth elements in California and Texas, respectively, both of which are recipients of a Defense Production Act Title III technology

89、 investment agreement.44 Several separation and processing projects are also under development, including in Bokan Mountain in Alaska and Wheat Ridge, Colorado.45There also are domestic developments further along the clean energy technology value chain. For example, Nevada has become home to Teslas

90、Gigafactory battery plant, soon to be followed by another Tesla battery factory in Texas.46 More plants to manufacture batteries for EVs are planned for Georgia, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio.47 U.S. IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL MINERALSThe U.S. Geological Survey has decades of expertise in track

91、ing domestic mineral resource assessments, but the first mineral supply chains assessment work specific to clean energy applications was issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 2010. The DOEs 2010 and 2011 Critical Materials Strategy reports provided the findings from their criticality assessmen

92、t on rare earths and other elements needed for various energy applications, including the identification of critical minerals14 minerals in the 2010 report and 16 minerals in the 2011 report. Under Executive Order (EO) 13817, “A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Min

93、erals,” issued in 2017, critical minerals are currently defined as: (i) a non-fuel mineral or mineral material essential to the economic and national security of the United States, (ii) the supply chains of which is vulnerable to disruption, and (iii) that serves an essential function in the manufac

94、turing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for our economy or our national security. Per this definition, in May 2018, the U.S. government released a list of 33 minerals and two mineral groupsplatinum group metals and rare-earth elementsthat are deemed critical and

95、 warned that of the 35 entries, the United States relied on import for more than half of the annual consumption of 31. Moreover, the United States lacks any domestic production (and thus is completely import-reliant) for 14 of them. 11 | Jane NakanoU.S. Strategy and ResponsesThe availability of mine

96、rals has been an important issue for U.S. policymakers for decades, but until the turn of the twenty-first century, it was mainly in the context of their value for defense applications. This has rapidly changed in recent years. The supply of critical minerals has emerged as a major economic security

97、 issue, which in turn has become a national security concern. This shift emanated from a combination of growing U.S. import dependence and the market-distorting effects of Chinese mineral export practices in the late-2000s. 2010 was a pivotal year for U.S. policymakers. In March, the Obama administr

98、ations White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) began convening the Interagency Working Group on Critical and Strategic Minerals Supply Chains to promote supply diversification, mitigate the long-term risks associated with a dependence on critical minerals, establish federal R&D pr

99、iorities, promote environmentally sustainable mining, and prepare a next-generation workforce.48 Also in 2010, the National Science and Technology Councils Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability chartered the Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chains to de

100、velop advice and provide assistance on policies, plans, and procedures for mitigating mineral risks.49 In December 2010, shortly after the Chinese embargo of rare-earth element exports to Japan in October 2010, the DOE issued its first-ever strategic document focused on the role of critical minerals

101、 and materials in the clean energy economy, Critical Materials Strategy. The 2010 strategy pointed to the potential growth in global consumption of critical materials commensurate with the expansion of clean energy technology deployment in the future and stressed the importance of global supply chai

102、n diversification, substitute materials development, and greater research into the recycling and reuse of materials.50 In addition to material supply and demand projection, the DOE undertook a review of the supply chains for four components in clean energy technologies and presented areas for action

103、 by U.S. federal agencies, including but not limited to those under DOE jurisdiction (e.g., research and development). This inaugural work was quickly followed by the 2011 Critical Materials Strategy, with updates in areas such as criticality assessments and market and technology analyses. Moreover,

104、 the DOEs 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review, which examined the status of energy-related science and technology with medium-term commercialization potential, included a critical material technology assessment that reported on key trends affecting material criticality for clean energy components, su

105、ch as permanent magnets for wind turbines and EVs. The DOE also outlined its R&D goals and pathways for advancing its critical material technology work.51The major U.S. government effort to assess the national security of critical minerals supply chains under the Trump administration began with EO 1

106、3817, issued in December 2017. The documents key concern was the United States heavy import reliance for critical minerals, and it focused on various current technological, technical, regulatory, and legal limitations to the increase of domestic mineral production. In response to EO 13817, the Natio

107、nal Science and Technology Councils Subcommittee on Critical Minerals prepared A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals (hereafter referred to as the Federal Strategy), which was then released by the U.S. Department of Commerce in June 2019. The strategy present

108、ed “6 Calls to Action, 24 goals, and 61 recommendations” in pursuit of the following objectives52:12 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chains. . . improve the ability of the advanced technology, industrial, and defense manufacturing sectors that use critical minerals to adapt to emerging

109、 mineral criticality issues; reduce risks for American businesses that rely on critical minerals; create a favorable U.S. business climate for production facilities at different stages of critical mineral supply chains; and support the economic security and national defense of the United States; all

110、 of which will reduce the Nations vulnerability to critical mineral supply disruptions. The types of issues covered under the “6 Calls to Action” were wide-ranging and included research, development, and deployment (RD&D); supply chains and the manufacturing base; international trade and cooperation

111、; domestic resource assessment and upstream regulation; and workforce availability and capacity. The strategy largely reflected the Trump administrations general view that economic security was national security, although it also underscored the benefit of international cooperation. Analogous to the

112、 strong energy interdependence among North American economies, the United States has close trading relationships with Canada and Mexico in critical minerals. For example, the strategy noted that “Canada and Mexico supply all or part of U.S. consumption for many critical minerals.”53 It also called f

113、or establishing policy consultation as well as R&D cooperation with like-minded economiessuch as Canada, Australia, the European Union, and Japan. Interestingly, one of most notable multilateral endeavors under the Trump administration relative to critical minerals supply chains was the Energy Resou

114、rce Governance Initiative (ERGI), even though the Federal Strategy did not specifically mention resource governance challenges. Launched in June 2019, the ERGI shed light on the key linkages between demand for critical minerals, growth of renewable power generation and battery technologies, and reso

115、urce management and sector governance capacity-building in resource-rich countries around the world.54 Its membership has expanded to include Australia and the Philippines in the Asia-Pacific; Argentina, Brazil, and Peru in Central and South America; and Botswana, the DRC, Namibia, and Zambia in Afr

116、ica.55Meanwhile, the Federal Strategy itself was notably silent on the growing global attention on these minerals and their contribution to energy transition. Given that climate mitigation is likely the most significant and dynamic demand multiplier for clean energy technology component minerals, th

117、e role of critical minerals in the ongoing energy transition merited a much clearer recognition. However, the introductory section merely noted that the minerals are used in “electricity generation, storage and transmission systems.”56 In contrast, both “national security” and “national defense” app

118、eared over a dozen times throughout the Federal Strategy, underscoring its prominence as a consideration in the U.S. government assessment of its supply chains vulnerability and response formulation. Also, per EO 13817, the DOE issued “Critical Minerals Rare Earths Supply Chain: A Situational White

119、Paper” in April 2020. This placed a primary focus on the status of industry along the upstream and midstream of the supply chains and underscored the alignment between the focus of EO 13817 and ongoing DOE activities to diversify supply of critical materials (e.g., increasing domestic production, se

120、parations, and processing). Additionally, the white paper also offered suggestions on how the U.S. effort to diversify supply could be augmented.57 The 2017 executive order was followed by EO 13953 in September 2020, “Addressing the Threat to the Domestic Supply Chain from Reliance on Critical Miner

121、als from Foreign Adversaries and Supporting the Domestic Mining and Processing Industries.” This executive order adopted a starkly sharper tone on the role of China in the global supply chains for critical minerals. For example, the 2017 13 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chainsexecuti

122、ve order did not once mention China, and the resultant Federal Strategy referenced China only under 1 of its 24 goals (alluding to its 2010 rare-earth export embargo as an example of the risk of heavy dependence on China).58 In contrast, under EO 13953, President Trump declared a “national emergency

123、” to deal with the threat to the U.S. economy and national security emanating from the countrys dependency on China for these minerals. The order suggested the use of tariffs or quotas as potential remedies and directed agencies to examine potential authorities and prepare agency-specific plans to i

124、mprove the supply chains. 59 In response to the 2020 executive order, the DOE released Critical Minerals and Materials in January 2021.60 The document complemented the white paper from a year earlier by providing greater information on the DOEs ongoing R&D work in the areas of diversifying supply ch

125、ains, developing critical mineral substitutes, and improving reuse and recycling. For example, the DOE has made key investments in efforts to produce rare-earth elements from sources such as coal and coal byproducts and in developing new magnet alloys and new phosphor materials to reduce rare-earth

126、elements requirements. In the area of reuse and recycling, DOE efforts have advanced the disassembly and recovery of rare-earth magnets from hard disk drives, for example.61 In laying out their R&D objectives under detailed categories of goals, the DOE underscored how the R&D ecosystem can contribut

127、e to solving a host of challenges. National laboratories working on the critical minerals supply chains include the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Critical Materials Institute (led by Ames Laboratory), and the ReCell Lithium Battery Recycling R&D Center at Argonne National Laboratory. Al

128、so, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) has awarded projects related to improving the recovery of critical minerals to advance the reuse and recycle objective.62 The inauguration of the Biden administration likely ushers in a unique alignment of policy priorities and considerations

129、 that could yield a more comprehensive strategy on critical minerals supply chains for the United States. First and foremost, climate change mitigation is the top administration priority. The Biden administration seeks to deliver on its mid-century carbon neutrality commitment through the accelerate

130、d deployment of clean energy technologies across industries, for example by ridding the power sector of carbon sources by 2035 and by massively electrifying the transportation sector. A month after the inauguration, the Biden administration issued EO 14017, “Executive Order on Americas Supply Chains

131、” and called for an immediate review of vulnerabilities in the supply chains for critical minerals and high-capacity batteries, including electric vehicle batteries.63 Identifying climate mitigation as a key driver for clean energy technology deployment, the administration underscored the linkage be

132、tween the supply chain security and the U.S. ability to accelerate its leadership of clean energy technologies.64The administration may also roll out measures to hold China accountable for its practices relative to minerals and materials that put U.S. companies at a disadvantage, as outlined in the

133、Biden campaign plan to “rebuild U.S. supply chains and ensure the U.S. does not face future shortages of critical equipment,” in which key raw materials are noted.65 This could be one of more immediate steps available to the administration, as other measures to strengthen the supply chainssuch as up

134、stream project developments and R&D endeavorsare more incremental in nature. The efficacy of pursuing a trade case, for example, would need to be weighed carefully against the risk of politically-motivated supply disruptions and their effects on U.S. supply chains when a pool of alternative supplier

135、sas well as the availability of substitutesremains limited for some of the critical minerals.14 | Jane NakanoAdditionally, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm remarked at her confirmation hearing in January 2021 that she “enthusiastically” supports the DOEs role in critical minerals “for both jobs

136、 and energy security and supply chain security in the United States.” Her view clearly comports with the administrations commitment to create jobs, as exemplified by the issuance of EO 14005, “Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of Americas Workers.”66 However, what is less clear is

137、 how and whether the effort to rebuild the manufacturing base for clean energy technology components will translate into revitalizing upstream job opportunities, especially because the same political force behind the deployment of clean energy technologies has generally been adverse to the extractio

138、n of hydrocarbon resources in the past. 15 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chains5European UnionStatus of EU Supply ChainsThe European Union consists of a variety of economies in terms of their resource endowments and industrial structures. Some of the EU member economies are mineral p

139、roducers and suppliers. For example, Germany accounts for 8 percent of the global production of gallium (used in PV thin films), Finland accounts for 10 percent of the global production of germanium (used in multi-junction solar cells), Spain accounts for 31 percent of the global production of stron

140、tium (used in anode for solid oxide fuel cells), and France accounts for 49 percent of the global production of hafnium (used in super-alloys for space applications).67 EU members also include major manufacturers of solar PV components, wind turbines, and EVs, such as Germany, Denmark, France, Italy

141、, Spain, and Switzerland. In fact, Germany is home to some of the worlds leading manufacturers of these clean energy components. Europes focus has traditionally been on the refining and manufacturing industries rather than the extractive industry.68 A combination of limited understanding of resource

142、 availability within the European Union and economic and societal hurdles seems to have hampered upstream development, leading to the relative absence of the European Union from the upstream portion of global supply chains for many minerals.69 This is clearly the case for the critical minerals suppl

143、y for wind turbine technology and EV batteries. The European Union produces no more than 1 percent of the minerals that are needed for wind turbine technology (rare earths among them) or lithium-ion battery technology (e.g., cobalt, natural graphite, and lithium).70 EU capacity is also limited in th

144、e processing phase for component minerals for wind turbines, PV cells and modules, and batteries, making up about 10 percent of the global supply for wind turbines and batteries and about 5 percent for PV cells and modules.71 EU manufacturing capacity for components for the three clean energy techno

145、logies is more 16 | Jane Nakanovariable. While the European Union accounts for about 20 percent and 10 percent of the global total in wind turbine and battery component manufacturing, respectively, EU capacity is effectively absent in the PV component manufacturing phase.72 EU IDENTIFICATION OF CRIT

146、ICAL MINERALSSince 2011, the European Commission has been issuing a list of critical and raw minerals every three years; the latest update was released in September 2020. The list expanded from 14 entries in 2011 to 20 in 2014, 27 in 2017, and 30 in 2020. The 30 entries consist of 27 minerals and th

147、ree mineral groups: heavy and light rare-earth elements (counted separately) and platinum group metals. The commission assessed 83 individual raw materials before finalizing the 2020 list, which was included in the Critical Raw Materials Resilience. The assessment work was led by the Ad hoc Working

148、Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials, a sub-group of the Raw Materials Supply Group, which in turn is an expert group of the European Commission. EU Strategy and ResponsesThe security of critical minerals supply chains formally became an EU agenda item in the late-2000s with the launch of the Ra

149、w Materials Initiative in 2008. The main aim of the Raw Materials Initiative was to ensure fair and sustainable supply of minerals and materials from global markets and to encourage efficient resource supply through recycling. The initiative emanated from growing recognition by EU member governments

150、 that the lack of an integrated policy response to market-distorting practices would limit the European Unions ability to secure raw materials at “fair and undistorted prices.”73 The European Commission argued that distortion of international trade in raw minerals and materials is arising from the i

151、ndustrial strategies of emerging economiessuch as China, Russia, India, and South Africathat aim to protect their resource base in order to generate advantages for their downstream industries.74 Also notable in the Raw Materials Initiative was its clear recognition that minerals, such as rare earths

152、 and cobalt, are important for Europes shift toward developing innovative “environmental-friendly sic” technologies and products.75 In 2012, the commission established the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials to carry out the Raw Materials Initiative.A decade later, the European Union se

153、es secure and sustainable supply of critical minerals as an ongoing challenge which has risen in strategic importance as the European Union strives to deliver on the two inter-linked agendas of meeting its climate neutrality goal and preserving industrial competitiveness. Pursuing the robust deploym

154、ent of clean energy technologies could exacerbate the current level of import-dependence for critical minerals and materials if the supply security issue is left unaddressed. This potential trade-off has become a disquieting issue for the European Union, which is already concerned that global compet

155、ition for these resources has become fierce. Critical Raw Materials Resilience: Charting a Path towards greater Security and Sustainability, issued in September 2020, is the European Unions most recent strategic document focusing on the supply security of critical minerals. Prepared by the Directora

156、te-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and Small-Medium Enterprises, Critical Raw Materials Resilience included a list of critical minerals and an action plan to increase the resilience of critical minerals supply chains for the European Union, with the following four aims76:17 |

157、 Jane Nakano Develop resilient value chains for EU industrial ecosystems; Reduce dependency on primary critical raw materials through circular use of resources, sustainable products, and innovation; Strengthen the sustainable and responsible domestic sourcing andprocessing of raw materials in the Eu

158、ropean Union; and Diversify supply with sustainable and responsible sourcing from third countries, strengthening rules-based open trade in raw materials and removing distortions to international trade. In clear recognition that the demand for clean energy technologies is the leading factor affecting

159、 its critical minerals demand and industrial competitiveness, the European Commission also released the Critical Raw Materials for Strategic Technologies and Sectors in the EU A Foresight Study to accompany the Resilience document. The report not only provided the outlook for demand in minerals and

160、materials in 2030 and 2050 but also detailed the risk analysis for the critical minerals supply chains per technologies and sectors that have strategic importance to the European Union. Among its 2050 outlook highlights are a 60-fold growth in lithium demand, a 15-fold growth in cobalt demand, and a

161、 10-fold growth in demand for the rare earths used in permanent magnets.77Immediately following the release of Critical Raw Materials Resilience, in September 2020, the European Raw Materials Alliance was launched to identify barriers, opportunities, and investment cases to build capacity at all sta

162、ges of the critical minerals value chain.78 The establishment of this alliance was the first of 10 actions presented in Critical Raw Materials Resilience. The alliance will complement the ongoing EU work on the battery value chain being pursued through the European Battery Alliance, an initiative th

163、at was established by the European Commission in 2017 and supported by the European Investment Bank. The EU strategy on the security of critical minerals supply chains has evolved to reflect emerging global challenges. First and foremost is climate change. The 2008 strategic document noted the linka

164、ge between the supply of critical minerals and the European Unions drive to develop and innovate environmental-friendly technologies. In the 2020 version, climate change is a prominent focus, both as a key reason for the anticipated expansion of clean energy technology deployment (thus necessitating

165、 a secure supply of critical minerals) and as an issue on which the European Union seeks to become a global champion. Positioning itself to seize the economic and industrial opportunities that may arise from the required efforts of mitigating climate change effects, the mineral resilience strategy s

166、ynergizes well with the European Unions 2019 Green Deal. The sustainable use of natural resources, such as minerals for clean energy technologies, comports to one of the two key objectives of the Green Deal: to promote the efficient use of resources by moving to a circular economy.79 For example, in

167、 order to underpin the sustainability and circularity of battery consumption, the European Commission decided in November 2020 to modernize EU legislation on batteries to facilitate their collection, repurposing, and recycling.80 The shift in the global economic landscapefrom one based on the neo-li

168、beral notion of shared prosperity through greater integration of supply chains and trade to one that is more fragmented and inward-lookingis another key challenge that is shaping the European Unions response to its critical minerals supply chain security. At the launch of the European Raw Materials

169、Alliance, for example, Germanys minister for economic affairs and energy noted the “growing international protectionism” on raw materials and remarked on the importance of supporting EU companies and stakeholders along the supply chain.81 This shift is the backdrop for both growing concern among pol

170、icymakers over 18 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chainsminerals supply availability and the interest in greater intra-EU solutions to leverage complementarity among member economies with different supply chain capacities. Both the Critical Raw Materials Resilience and A New Industrial

171、 Strategy for Europe, another communication by the European Commission, released in March 2020, feature the notion of “strategic autonomy.”82 The term is nothing new in European politics, particularly on the issue of transatlantic diplomacy.83 However, the concept has recently expanded to clearly in

172、clude the notion of “reducing dependence on others for things the European Union needs the most,” such as critical minerals.84 As the European Union seeks to enhance its upstream capacity and that of nearby countries, some new mining projects are under development, such as a lithium mining project i

173、n the Czech Republic and a lithium-borate project in Serbia.85 Also, interest in nurturing its battery industry seems to be driving the European Unions plan to roll out strict environmental and labor requirements for batteries, as this could protect the EU battery market from cheaper Asian imports.8

174、6 There is one particular difference between the U.S. and EU strategic responses to the critical minerals supply chains challenge: China. In Critical Raw Materials Resilience, the European Commission articulates its concern that the European Unions growing critical mineral demand may essentially mea

175、n replacing its existing import dependence for fossil fuels with the future import dependence for raw minerals and materials. However, unlike the U.S. response that has become increasingly antagonistic to China, the European Commission refrains from naming China as its chief competitor for critical

176、mineral supplies and clean energy technology manufacturing. Nor does the European Union call out Chinese behavior as the primary cause for concern in the sound working of global supply chains. This difference in tone may reflect not only the intensifying geopolitical rivalry between the United State

177、s and China but also the strategic calculus for the European Union to preserve amicable economic ties with China. This is partly to hedge against the relative decline in U.S. geoeconomic influence and partly to not preempt the prospect for stronger and more balanced economic ties with China, as exem

178、plified by multiyear efforts to conclude the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. The third major global challenge is the Covid-19 economic crisis. In fact, the European Commission specifically noted in Critical Raw Materials Resilience that the Covid-19 pandemic revealed “how fast and ho

179、w deeply global supply chains can be disrupted.”87 The EU economic recovery plan, issued in May 2020, identified critical minerals and materials as one of the areas where Europe needs to be more resilient in preparation for future shocks.88 The pandemic-induced sense of vulnerability appears to have

180、 amplified the European Unions interest in enhancing its “strategic autonomy” by increasing supply capacity within the European Union.89 The EU Covid-19 recovery plan is thus seen as an enabler of enhanced resilience, as it relates to the critical minerals supply chains.The European Union may rely m

181、ore heavily on financing and trade rules to advance its interests in the global competition over green mineral supply chains. For example, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has recently adopted a new energy lending policy that would enable the bank to support projects related to the supply of criti

182、cal raw materials needed for low-carbon technologies in the European Union. The European Union looks to the EIB to help de-risk such projects and attract more private investment, both within the European Union and in resource-rich third countries.90 Additionally, viewing the integrated value chains

183、as a “fundamental growth engine” and key for economic recovery, the European Commissions communication on pandemic economic recovery has suggested a “trade policy review” to ensure the uninterrupted global flow of goods and services.91 19 | Jane Nakano6JapanStatus of Japans Supply ChainsJapan is a m

184、anufacturing economy that is significantly import-dependent for natural resources, including critical minerals. While a sizable indium mine used to exist in the northern island of Hokkaido, the mine ceased operation in 2006, making Japan entirely dependent on imports for indium supplies.92 Japans pr

185、esence is severely lacking in the upstream, but it does have a substantial rare-earth processing and manufacturing industry. For example, Japanese companies account for around 15 percent of annual global magnet production.93 Specifically for the global market for high-performance NdFeB permanent mag

186、nets, three Japanese corporationsHitachi Metals, Shin-Etsu Chemical, and TDKhad a 48 percent share as of the mid-2010s.94 The Japanese capacity in the magnet industry stems from early inventions in the process and the acquisition of attendant intellectual property rights. Consequently, major manufac

187、turers of sintered NdFeB magnets, including China and Germany, currently license the right to manufacture and sell these batteries from Hitachi.95 20 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply ChainsJAPANS IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL MINERALSJapans first list of critical minerals was prepared by t

188、he Advisory Committee on Mining Industry in 1984, under the direction of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (the predecessor of the current METI). The list appears to have stayed constant in the subsequent decades. For example, the same set of minerals appears in the 2014 METI document

189、, where the minerals are considered critical and thus merit policy focus and financial support to address their supply chain security. The list has been updated since 2014 to now include 32 critical minerals and two mineral groupsplatinum group metals and rare-earth elements. Some minerals, such as

190、palladium, have been removed, while others, such as fluorine and silicon metals, have been added since 2014.Japans Strategy and ResponsesViewing its economic security as almost synonymous to its national security, the Japanese government has long approached the security of critical minerals and mate

191、rials supply chains as a top priority. Given the absence of domestic upstream capacity, Japan pursued securing its critical minerals supply chains through trade, investment in mining projects overseas, stockpiling, and R&D in substitutes and recycling technologies. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and

192、 Industry (METI) leads the policy work, while Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC) is the key implementing actor. JOGMEC is affiliated with METI and has the statutory authority to make strategic investments abroad to enhance Japans energy security. As early as the mid-1980s, Japan

193、 was concerned with the supply shortages that may arise from the slow pace of upstream development around the world and the anticipated demand growth for the minerals required for high-tech goods. As a result, in 1983, the Japanese government began stockpiling seven mineralsincluding tungsten, cobal

194、t, and vanadium, three of the minerals that are commonly identified as critical by the United States, the European Union, and Japan today.96 However, determining that stockpiling is insufficient to mitigate longer-term risks to its critical minerals supply chains, the Japanese government also began

195、to increase its focus on technology R&D.97Japanese policymakers have taken a more strategic approach to the security of critical minerals supply chains since the early-2000s. In July 2007, METI issued Measures to Secure the Stable Supply of Rare Metals Going Forward.98 This underscored the importanc

196、e of “resource diplomacy” to enhance access to overseas mining projects, in addition to the existing focus on mineral reuse, R&D on substitutes, and stockpiling.99 In particular, the Japanese government decided in 2008 to augment its resource diplomacy capability through the use of foreign aid, publ

197、ic finance, and trade insurance.100 In anticipation of future supply disruptions, Japan further introduced Strategies to Secure Rare Metals in 2009, where it clarified both its policy tools and focus areas around four key pillars: securing resources overseas, recycling, substitute development, and s

198、tockpiling.101 To date, overseas rare-earth development projects Japan initiated or entered into partnerships with a host country for include the Mount Weld project in Australia, the Don Pao project in Vietnam, and the Indian Rare Earth project in India, as well as the partnership with Lynas of Aust

199、ralia on a separation and purification plant in Malaysia.102For Japanese policymaking on critical minerals supply chains, 2010 was a pivotal year. In the aftermath of the Chinese embargo on rare-earth exports to Japan in the fall, the Japanese government grew alarmed with the potential exodus of Jap

200、anese midstream capacities to China, as 21 | Jane Nakanothe Chinese government had introduced a 25 percent export tax and 17 percent value-added tax; there was no such tax obligations if the foreign company manufactured inside China using local rare earths and then exported.103 In response, the Japa

201、nese government introduced measures, including 39 billion Japanese Yen package ($3.9 billion when $1=JPY100) to help Japanese firms cover the cost of building various capacities within Japan to mitigate the effects of material shortfalls.104 The effectiveness of this particular measure may be mixed

202、or muted, however, as several Japanese companies nonetheless moved permanent magnet manufacturing factories to China between 2014 and 2018.105Also, in the early-2010s, having become particularly sensitive to the sense of equity among resource-rich countries and the attendant rise in resource nationa

203、lism, Japan expanded its resource strategy to include a focus on contributing to the economic development of a resource-rich country by considering the provision of technical expertise in areas such as resource surveying, local irrigation systems, and human resource development.106 In the area of R&

204、D, one of Japans key focuses has been on developing a production process that reduces the use of critical minerals. Products and components resulting from Japans R&D efforts to reduce the use of rare earths include abrasives and certain types of magnets.107 R&D on material reduction and substitutes

205、has also been among the most active areas of Japans cooperation with the United States. Additionally, submarine deposits of critical minerals in Japans territorial waters have become a recent focus of Japans R&D endeavors. Between 2013 and 2017, six deposits were discovered off the southern island o

206、f Okinawa. Critical mineral deposits, including those containing cobalt and nickel, are under resource survey and various technical evaluations to ascertain their commercial feasibility.108 A combination of Japanese strategies to seek non-Chinese upstream capacity, reuse materials, and develop subst

207、itutes has resulted in the reduction of Japanese reliance on Chinese rare-earth supplies from 85 percent in 2009 to 58 percent in 2018.109 Japans official target by 2025 is to reduce its rare-earth import reliance on a single supplier country below 50 percent, as well as to increase its self-suffici

208、ency in meeting cobalt demand to 50 percent.110In March 2020, Japan released its latest perspective on how to secure its supply chains for critical minerals and materials as part of the New International Resource Strategy. The strategy underscored the growing importance of critical minerals for EVs

209、and renewable power generation equipment in the context of the carbon emissions mitigation effort. In formulating the strategy, policymakers took into account rising resource competition with the United States, Europe, China, and various emerging economies.111 Under this strategy, the Japanese gover

210、nment called for better aligning mineral-specific criticality profiles and policy tools, reviewing the stockpile system, promoting international collaboration on research, and focusing on innovation related to mineral recycling, among other goals.112 Per the New International Resource Strategy, Japa

211、ns national parliament passed legislation in June 2020 to amend and expand the scope of JOGMECs financial functions in aiding Japanese businesses involvement in upstream projects abroad. Prior to the amendment, JOGMECs equity activities were limited to exploration, acquisition of existing developmen

212、t and production assets, and investment in refining activities tied to mining. The amendment expanded JOGMECs scope to include the ability to continue financing a project that progressed from the exploration phase to the development and production phase.113 22 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals

213、Supply ChainsMoreover, the Japanese stockpile will expand beyond the original seven minerals and increase the reserve level from 60 days of domestic consumption equivalent to as much as 180 days for some of them.114 This would signify major modernization of Japans rare metal stockpiling policy; what

214、 goes into the strategic reserve (seven minerals) at what reserve level (60-day domestic consumption equivalent) had remained the same since the stockpile system was established in the mid-1980s.115 While the centrality of industrial competitiveness has served as the core driver of Japans approach t

215、o strengthening the security of its critical minerals supply chains, its recent priority-setting has been attuned to major global developments, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, the disruption in supply chains for key electronic and automobile components from Asia during the pandemic hei

216、ghtened Japans sense of vulnerability. Seeking to enhance the resilience of Japans supply chains, the Japanese government passed several budgets in JFY2020 (April 2020March 2021), totaling $5.45 billion (when US$1 = JPY100), to aid Japanese manufacturers of goods “whose production is highly concentr

217、ated in select countries overseas and the disruptions in whose supply chains could deal significant damage to the economy,” such as critical minerals. This aid aims to reshore manufacturing capacity or to relocate it to elsewhere with a lower risk of supply disruptions.116Minerals Identified as “Cri

218、tical”JapanU.S.EUUnited States, Japan, and the European UnionU.S. + EUJapan + EUU.S. + JapanU.S. + Japan + EUSilicon metal (Si)Boron (B)Cesium (Cs)Chromium (Cr)Manganese (Mn)Rubidium (Rb)Rhenium (Re)Tellurium (Te)Zirconium (Zr)Arsenic (As)Helium (He)Potash / Potassium (P)Tin (Sn)Uranium (U)Phosphoru

219、s (P)Coking coalPhosphate rockRubber (natural)Scandium (Sc)Aluminum (Al) / BauxiteBarite (BaSO4)FlurosparGraphite (natural)Carbon (C)Fluorine (F)Thallium (Tl)Barium (Ba)Molybdenum (Mo)Nickel (Ni)Selenium (Se)Antimony (Sb)Beryllium (Be)Bismuth (Bi)Cobalt (Co)Gallium (Ga)Germanium (Ge)Hafnium (Hf)Indi

220、um (In)Lithium (Li)Magnesium (Mg)Niobium (Nb)Strontium (Sr)Tantalum (Ta)Titanium (Ti)Tungsten (W)Vanadium (V)Platinum group metalsRare-earth elementsSource: Created by Ian Barlow based on Department of the Interior, Final List of Critical Minerals 2018, Federal Register 83, No. 97 (May 18, 2018): 23

221、295-6, https:/www.federalregister.gov/docu-ments/2018/05/18/2018-10667/final-list-of-critical-minerals-2018; European Commission, Critical Raw Materials Resilience: Charting a Path towards Greater Security and Sustainability (Brussels: European Commission, September 3, 2020); Ministry of Economy, Tr

222、ade and Industry, Issues for Consideration in Formulating A New International Resource Strategy authors translation (Tokyo: Government of Japan, October 4, 2019).energy security andclimate change program23 | Jane Nakano7ConclusionKey economies with innovation and manufacturing bases that are import-

223、dependent for critical minerals face emerging geoeconomic competition over the supply chains of critical minerals. Clean energy technologies play an important role in mitigating the worst effects of the global climate crisis, and as such, demand is expected to grow for clean energy technologies and

224、for their component critical minerals. These forces, combined with the geopolitical uncertainty stemming from Chinas ascent and the fragility in global supply chains as illuminated by the Covid-19 pandemic, enhance the strategic importance of strengthening supply chains for critical minerals and mat

225、erials. Successfully securing supply chains has implications beyond access to these mineralsit affects ones ability to preserve or enhance competitiveness in advanced technology manufacturing, such as EVs. Greater recognition of the issue on the heels of the 2010 Chinese rare-earth export embargo an

226、d the WTO victory in 2014 has not appeared to materially improve current import-dependence for critical minerals by key economies such as the United States and the European Union. However, there are indications that progress is being made. For example, the U.S. strategy is beginning to show promise,

227、 with the launch of several domestic separation/processing and component manufacturing projects. The EU effort is gaining momentum in the area of reuse and recycle, while intra-EU upstream development may leverage additional resources from the post-Covid economic recovery plan. Meanwhile, Japans foc

228、used approach on partnering with resource-rich countries for mineral supplies and on advancing the development of reduce, reuse, and recycle technologies has effectively reduced its dependence on Chinese rare earths, although the country remains import-dependent for critical mineral supplies. 24 | T

229、he Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply ChainsDifferent economies are motivated by different concerns that reflect their resource endowment profiles and industrial structures. The United States appears most concerned with securing uninterrupted access to critical minerals-based components for def

230、ense applications, as well as reducing substantial import dependence on a single supplier that could be exploited geopolitically.Meanwhile, the European Union and Japan appear primarily concerned with securing uninterrupted access to affordably-priced critical minerals and processed materials to pro

231、tect their industrial competitiveness and domestic manufacturers. While likely inevitable, this lack of a common definition of “security” as it relates to critical minerals supply chains may be one barrier to effective multilateral partnerships on this matter. The experiences of key economies sugges

232、t that the availability of domestic mineral supplies is hardly the sole indispensable factor in ones ability to have secure supply chains. For instance, the lack of domestic capacity to separate and process rare-earth concentrates has limited the United States from fully capitalizing on its rare-ear

233、th mineral supplies at Mountain Pass. Moreover, Chinese experience with the DRC shows that one need not hold major domestic cobalt deposits to become dominant in subsequent midstream and downstream phases along the value chain. The potential contribution of domestic upstream capacity presents an int

234、eresting question in the context of the United States and Europe. In both economies, the environmental and climate-mitigation movement has favored renewable power sources and clean energy technologies, sometimes at the exclusion of lower-carbon fossil fuels, such as natural gas. The use of hydrocarb

235、on resources has come under scrutiny in phases ranging from resource extraction, to domestic combustion, to export for use in a power or industrial sector abroad. Balancing concerns on import dependence with the public acceptance of domestic mineral production is a public policy issue that merits ro

236、bust discussion.Another important issue is the tension between national economic security concerns and commercial concerns. The former relates to issues such as energy import dependence and industrial competitiveness from a national perspective, while the latter relates to corporate interests in pre

237、serving market share and maximizing profits. Would a manufacturer procure domestically sourced minerals if they were much more expensive than foreign supplies, even in the name of national interest to develop more secure critical minerals supply chains? The security of supply chains for the minerals

238、 and materials needed in clean energy technologies has become a strategic issue, not only because it could affect the pace of clean energy technology deployment but also because clean energy technology has become the latest frontier for geoeconomic rivalries. Competition over critical mineral suppli

239、es and the technical capacities to turn them into clean energy goods is increasing. Major economies are reexamining the security of their critical minerals supply chains and refining their strategies in order to enhance their security. While the U.S. approach is multipronged, reflective of its miner

240、al wealth as well as its strong innovation base, EU and Japanese approaches favor innovation to drive the reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials. What exactly drives each economys strategy to enhance the security of critical minerals may differ, but their efforts warrant sustained political co

241、mmitment, especially in the area of technology innovation. It was innovation and ingenuityin the form of combined application of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for shale oil and gas extractionthat played a central role in turning the public concern over “peak oil” from one about finite

242、 supply to one about declining demand. Innovation has helped 25 | Jane Nakanoto diminish oils currency as a geopolitical asset and altered the geopolitics between oil-producing economies as well as their relationships with oil import-dependent economies. Will innovation play a similar role in alteri

243、ng the geopolitics of critical minerals supply chains? A race is on for innovation. It is a race that could make every economy a winner if the outcome significantly improves the security of supply chains for minerals and materials and facilitates the deployment of clean energy technologies that are

244、essential in addressing the existential threat of climate change. 26 | Jane Nakano8About the AuthorJane Nakano is a senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Her research interests include U.S. energy policy; global

245、market and policy developments concerning natural gas, nuclear energy, and critical minerals; and energy security and climate issues in the Asia-Pacific region. She frequently writes and speaks on these issues at domestic and international conferences and to media around the world. She has also test

246、ified before Congress on U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on U.S.-China nuclear energy cooperation. Prior to joining CSIS in 2010, Nakano worked in the Office of Policy and International Affairs in the U.S. Department of Energ

247、y, where she covered a host of energy, economic, and political issues in Asia. From 2001 to 2002, she served at the U.S. embassy in Tokyo as special assistant to the energy attach. Nakano graduated from Georgetown Universitys School of Foreign Service and holds a masters degree from Columbia Univers

248、itys School of International and Public Affairs.27 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chains1 Kirsten Hund, Daniele La Porta, Thao P. Fabregas, Tim Laing, and John Drexhage, Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2020

249、), 11, http:/pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf. 2 Rare earths are a group of 17 elements composed of scandium, yttrium, and the lanthanides. They are difficult and costly to extract and process, although t

250、hey are relatively abundant across the world.3 Tsisilile Igogo, Debra Sandor, Ahmad Mayyas, and Jill Engel-Cox, Supply Chain of Raw Materials Used in the Manufacturing of Light-Duty Vehicle Lithium-Ion Batteries (Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August 2019), vi, https:/www.nrel.gov

251、/docs/fy19osti/73374.pdf. 4 Tetsushi Takahashi, “A future in which China no longer needs the world but the world cannot spin without it,” Financial Times, December 15, 2020, https:/ Jacqueline Holman and Jia Hui Tan, “Cobalt hydroxide shipments from South Africa ongoing; concerns lift price sentimen

252、t,” S&P Global Platts, January 12, 2021, https:/ 6 Sarah Ladislaw et al., Industrial Policy, Trade, and Clean Energy Supply Chains (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, and BloombergNEF, February 2021), 10-11, https:/www.csis.org/analysis/industrial-policy-trade-and-clean-

253、energy-supply-chains. 7 Ibid., 10.8 Ibid., 1112.9 The process of separating the individual rare-earth elements from each other is a chemical-intensive process because these elements are very chemically similar to one another. For more information, see Cindy Hurst, Chinas Rare Erath Elements Industry

254、: What Can the West Learn? (Washington, DC: Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, March 2010), 1819, http:/americanresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/rareearth.pdf. 10 “Global and China Cobalt Industry Report, 2018-2023,” PR Newswire, March 26, 2019, https:/ 11 Ladislaw et al., Indust

255、rial Policy, Trade, and Clean Energy Supply Chains, 11.12 “Global and China Cobalt Industry Report, 2018-2023,” PR Newswire.13 Ladislaw et al., Industrial Policy, Trade, and Clean Energy Supply Chains, 10.14 Ibid., 10.15 Tom Daly, “China becomes worlds biggest importer of rare earths: analysts,” Reu

256、ters, March 13, 2019, https:/ Endnotes28 | Jane Nakano16 Yujia He, “Re-Control the Market for Strategic Power: Chinas Reregulation of its Rare Earth Industry,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2016), 175, https:/smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/58561/HE-DISSERTATION-201

257、6.pdf. 17 Ibid., 17918 Ibid., 176.19 Marc Humphries, Critical Minerals and U.S. Public Policy, CRS Report No. R45810 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, June 28, 2019), 40, https:/crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45810/2. 20 Yuzhou Shen, Ruthann Moomy, and Roderic G. Eggert, “Chin

258、as public policies toward rare earths, 19752018,” Miner Econ 33 (2020), 133, doi:10.1007/s13563-019-00214-2. 21 “United States Wins Victory in Rare Earths Dispute with China: WTO Report Finds Chinas Export Restraints Breach WTO Rules,” Office of U.S. Trade Representative, Press release, March 26, 20

259、14, https:/ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2014/March/US-wins-victory-in-rare-earths-dispute-with-China. 22 Max J. Zenglein and Anna Holzmann, Evolving Made in China 2025 (Berlin: MERICS, July 2, 2019), https:/merics.org/en/report/evolving-made-china-2025. 23 Pan Aihua,

260、“What Made-in-China 2025 means for petrochemicals and chemicals,” Canadian Process Equipment & Control News, October 24, 2018, https:/ 24 CK Tan and Iori Kawate, “China aims to reach new level of prosperity by 2035,” Nikkei Asia, October 29, 2020, https:/ 25 Shen, Moomy, and Eggert , “Chinas public

261、policies toward rare earths,” 138. 26 Ibid.27 Ibid., 142. 28 Xie Jun and Li Xuanmin, “Export control law to affect rare earths, UAVs,” Global Times, November 30, 2020, https:/ 29 Liu Zhihua and Liu Yukun, “China to step up protection of rare earth resources,” China Daily, January 16, 2021, https:/ 3

262、0 Ibid.31 Vaibhav Gupta, Tirtha Biswas, and Karthik Ganesan, Critical Non-Fuel Mineral Resources for Indias Manufacturing Sector: A Vision for 2030 (New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) and the National Science and Technology Management Information System Division of the Depart

263、ment of Science and Technology of India, 2016), https:/dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/CEEW_0.pdf. 32 Julia Pyper, “How Indias Renewable Energy Sector Survived and Thrived in a Turbulent 2020,” Greentech Media, January 6, 2021, https:/ and “India turns to electric vehicles to beat pollution,” BBC New

264、s, July 23, 2019, https:/ 33 Karl Decena, “Australia signs MOU to supply critical minerals to India,” S&P Global, June 4, 2020, https:/ | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chainscritical-minerals-to-india-58922619. 34 Government of Australia, Australias Critical Minerals Strategy (Canberra

265、: Australian Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 2019), https:/www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australias-critical-minerals-strategy/national-actions-on-critical-minerals. 35 Ibid.36 The United States has a stockpile of materials, the National Defense Stockpile (NDS), th

266、at is managed by the director of the Defense Logistics Agency and is set up to meet the DODs mission requirementsnot to supply the clean energy industry. The current NDS contains 37 materials (valued at $1.152 billion) that are mostly processed metals or other downstream products, including rare-ear

267、th and lithium-ion precursors. (For more information, see Humphries, Critical Minerals and U.S. Public Policy, 7.)37 The European Commission deliberated on the efficacy of national stockpiling of critical minerals in 2012 but found no support for it. For more information, see European Commission, On

268、 the Implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative (Brussels: European Commission, June 24, 2013), 34, https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0442:FIN:EN:PDF. 38 Brandon S. Tracy, An Overview of Rare Earth Elements and Related Issues for Congress, CRS Report No. R46618 (Wash

269、ington, DC: Congressional Research Service, November 24, 2020), 2, https:/ 39 Jeffery A. Green, “The collapse of American rare earth miningand lessons learned,” Defense News, November 12, 2019, https:/ 40 Humphries, Critical Minerals and U.S. Public Policy, 2.41 Ibid., 3.42 “Critical Materials Rare

270、Earths Supply Chain: A Situational White Paper,” U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE), April 2020, 7, https:/www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/04/f73/Critical%20Materials%20Supply%20Chain%20White%20Paper%20April%202020.pdf. 43 Tracy, An Overview of Rare Earth Elements.44 “DOD Announces Rare Earth

271、 Element Awards to Strengthen Domestic Industrial Base,” U.S. Department of Defense, Press release, November 17, 2020, https:/www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2418542/dod-announces-rare-earth-element-awards-to-strengthen-domestic-industrial-base/; and “DOD Announces Rare Earth Eleme

272、nt Award to Strengthen Domestic Industrial Base,” U.S. Department of Defense, Press release, February 1, 2021, https:/www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2488672/dod-announces-rare-earth-element-award-to-strengthen-domestic-industrial-base/.45 “Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply Cha

273、in,” U.S. DOE, 78.46 Notably, Panasonic announced in January 2021 its plan to develop batteries for Tesla that are free of cobalt over the next few years. Mitsuru Obe, “Cheaper Tesla? Panasonic to develop cobalt-free battery,” Nikkei Asia, January 12, 2021, https:/ 47 David R Baker, “Why Batteries A

274、re the Key to Bidens Green Dreams,” Bloomberg Green, January 16, 2021, https:/ | Jane Nakano48 U.S. DOE, Critical Materials Strategy (Washington, DC: December 2011), 120, https:/www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf. 49 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Advanced Technologie

275、s: Strengthened Federal Approach Needed to Help Identify and Mitigate Supply Risks for Critical Raw Materials (Washington, DC: September 2016), 2, https:/www.gao.gov/assets/680/679577.pdf. 50 U.S. DOE, Critical Materials Strategy.51 U.S. DOE, Critical Materials Technology Assessments, Quadrennial Te

276、chnology Review 2015 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2015), https:/www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/QTR2015-6F-Critical-Materials.pdf. 52 U.S. Department of Commerce, A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals (Washington, DC: June 2019).53

277、Ibid., 27.54 “Energy Resource Governance Initiative,” U.S. Department of State Bureau of Energy Resources, Fact sheet, 2019, https:/www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Energy-Resource-Governance-Initiative-ERGI-Fact-Sheet.pdf. 55 “Nine countries join U.S. strategic minerals initiative,” Reuters

278、, September 26, 2019, https:/ 56 U.S. Department of Commerce, A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals, 6.57 “Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply Chain,” U.S. DOE, 2.58 U.S. Department of Commerce, Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Cri

279、tical Minerals, 25.59 “Executive Order 13953: Addressing the Threat to the Domestic Supply Chain from Reliance on Critical Minerals from Foreign Adversaries and Supporting the Domestic Mining and Processing Industries,” White House, September 2020, https:/www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/05

280、/2020-22064/addressing-the-threat-to-the-domestic-supply-chain-from-reliance-on-critical-minerals-from-foreign. 60 U.S. DOE, Critical Minerals and MaterialsU.S. Department of Energys Strategy to Support Domestic Critical mineral and Material Supply Chain (FY2021-FY2031) (Washington, DC: January 2021

281、), https:/www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/01/f82/DOE%20Critical%20Minerals%20and%20Materials%20Strategy_0.pdf. 61 Ibid., 3. 62 Ibid., 4.63 “Executive Order on Americas Supply Chains,” White House, February 24, 2021, https:/www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/24/executi

282、ve-order-on-americas-supply-chains/; White House, “Americas Supply Chains,” Federal Register, March 3, 2021, https:/www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/03/01/2021-04280/americas-supply-chains. 64 “Fact Sheet: Securing Americas Critical Supply Chains,” White House, February 24, 2021, https:/www.wh

283、itehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/24/fact-sheet-securing-americas-critical-supply-chains/. 31 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chains65 “The Biden Plan to Rebuild U.S. Supply Chains and Ensure the U.S. Does Not Face Future Shortages of Critical Equipment,” Biden for

284、 President, https:/ 66 “The Executive Order on Ensuring the Future is Made in all of America by All of Americas Workers,” White House, January 25, 2021, https:/www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/25/executive-order-on-ensuring-the-future-is-made-in-all-of-america-by-all-of-

285、americas-workers/.67 European Commission, Study on the EUs list of Critical Raw Materials Final Report (Brussels: European Commission, 2020), 7, https:/ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/specific-interest/critical_en. 68 Ibid., 14. 69 Ibid.70 European Commission, Critical Materials for Strate

286、gic Technologies and Sectors in the EU - A Foresight Study (Brussels: European Commission, 2020), https:/ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/42881. 71 Ibid.72 Ibid. 73 European Commission, The raw materials initiative meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe (Brussels: European Commissio

287、n, April 11, 2008), 5, https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52008DC0699. 74 Ibid., 975 Ibid., 3.76 European Commission, Critical Raw Materials Resilience: Charting a Path towards greater Security and Sustainability (Brussels: European Commission, September 3, 2020), https:/eur-le

288、x.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0474. 77 Ibid., 5. 78 “About Us,” European Raw Materials Alliance, https:/erma.eu/about-us/. 79 European Commission, The European Green Deal (Brussels: EuropeanCommission,December 11, 2019), https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1596443

289、911913&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640#document2. 80 “Green Deal: Sustainable batteries for a circular climate neutral economy,” European Commission, Press release, December 10, 2020, https:/ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2312.81 Frdric Simon, “Europe faces up to Chinas supremacy on raw m

290、aterials,” Euractiv, October 5, 2020, https:/ European Commission, A New Industrial Strategy for Europe (Brussels: European Commission, March 10, 2020), https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0102. 83 Daniel Fiott, Strategic autonomy: towards European sovereignty in defense?

291、 (Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies, November 2018), https:/www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/Brief%2012_Strategic%20Autonomy.pdf. 84 European Commission, A New Industrial Strategy for Europe, 13. 32 | Jane Nakano85 Frdric Simon, “Raw materials: the missing link in

292、Europes drive for batteries,” Euractiv, November 9, 2020, https:/ 86 Sam Morgan, “EU could ban dirty battery imports, says Commission VP,” Euractiv, December 9, 2019, https:/ 87 European Commission, Critical Raw Materials Resilience, 1.88 “Europes Moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation,”

293、 European Commission, Press Release, May 27, 2020, 1213, https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:456:FIN. 89 Ibid. 90 European Commission, Critical Raw Materials Resilience, 8. 91 “Europes Moment,” European Commission, 13.92 National Institute for Environmental Studies, “Technolo

294、gies for Rare Metal Recycling Authors translation,”（ 技術 in the original language）(2016), https:/tenbou.nies.go.jp/science/description/detail.php?id=62.93 Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Critical Minerals Supply Chain in the United States (Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Septe

295、mber 2019), 5, https:/www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/1358/Critical-minerals-US-report.pdf.aspx. 94 He, “Re-Control the Market for Strategic Power,” 128. 95 “Critical Materials Rare Earths Supply Chain,” U.S. DOE, 9.96 Satoshi Kawamura and Haruto Takeda, “Natural Resource and Energy Policies,”

296、Summary of Trade and Industrial Policies, 1980-2000, No.10 Authors translation (通商産業政策 (19802000年) 概要 (10) 資源政策 in the original language), RIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 14-P-017, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (August 2014): 11, https:/www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/pdp/14

297、p017.pdf. 97 Ibid. 98 Authors translation. The original is 今後安定供給対策.99 Yozo Baba, “An Overview of the Current Situation of the Metals and Minerals Market,” Journal of the Surface Science Society of Japan 29, no. 10 (2008), 584, https:/www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsssj/29/10/29_10_578/_pdf/-char/ja.

298、 100 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Guidelines for Securing Natural Resources Authors translation (資源確保指針策定 in the original language) (Tokyo: Government of Japan, 2008), https:/www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/energy/shishin.html. 101 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Strategies for Securing Rare Met

299、als Authors translation (確保戦略 in the original language) (Tokyo: Government of Japan, July 28, 2009), http:/www.gichokai.gr.jp/archive/member/chosabu/zengishiryo/21nen/038/038-1.pdf. 102 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, A Broad Picture of Measures to Secure Rare Metals Authors translation (等確

300、保向取組全體像 in the original language) (Tokyo: Government of Japan, December 2011), 3, https:/www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/sankoshin/sangyo_gijutsu/haikibutsu_recycle/33 | The Geopolitics of Critical Minerals Supply Chainspdf/018_03_00.pdf. 103 Yujia He, “Regulation of Chinas rare earth production and export

301、,” International Journal of Emerging Markets (April 2014), 249, doi:10.1108/IJoEM-09-2012-0117. 104 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Comprehensive Measures Regarding Rare Earths Authors translation (総合対策 in the original language) (Tokyo: Government of Japan, December 13, 2010), 5, https:/www

302、.jraia.or.jp/member/oshirase/mite-nedo201012_1.pdf. 105 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Critical Non-China Supply Chain in the Age of Green Innovation (Tokyo: Government of Japan, September 1, 2020), 14.106 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Strategies to Secure Natural Resources Auth

303、ors translation (資源確保戦略 in the original language) (Tokyo: Government of Japan, 2012), 6, http:/www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/package/dai15/sankou01.pdf. 107 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Critical non-China Supply Chain in the Age of Green Innovation, 13.108 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Indu

304、stry, The Strategic Energy Plan (Tokyo: Government of Japan, July 2018), 37, https:/www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/category/others/basic_plan/5th/pdf/strategic_energy_plan.pdf. 109 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Critical non-China Supply Chain in the Age of Green Innovation, 13.110 Ibid., 23.111

305、 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, New International Resource Strategy (Tokyo: Government of Japan, March 2020), 9, https:/www.meti.go.jp/press/2019/03/20200330009/20200330009-1.pdf. 112 Ibid., 11.113 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Critical Non-China Supply Chain in the Age of Green

306、 Innovation, 22.114 Rieko Suda, “Japan to strengthen control over rare metal reserves,” Argus Media, July 3, 2020, https:/ and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, New International Resource Strategy, 10.115 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Issues for Consideration in Formulating A New I

307、nternational Resource Strategy Authors translation (新國際資源戦略策定向論點 in the original language) (Tokyo: Government of Japan, October 4, 2019), 47, https:/www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/enecho/shigen_nenryo/sekiyu_gas/pdf/010_03_00.pdf. 116 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, A Summary of Supplementary Bud

308、get for Fiscal Year 2020 Authors translation (令和年度補正予算 in the original language) (Tokyo: Government of Japan, April 2020), 5, https:/www.meti.go.jp/main/yosan/yosan_fy2020/hosei/pdf/hosei_yosan_gaiyo.pdf; and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, A Summary of Projects Related to the Third Supplem

309、entary Budget for Fiscal Year 2020 Authors translation (令和年度第次補正予算事業概要 in the original language) (Tokyo: Government of Japan, January 2021), 2627. https:/www.meti.go.jp/main/yosan/yosan_fy2020/hosei/pdf/hosei3_yosan_pr.pdf. COVER PHOTO IAN BARLOW1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 202 887 0200 | www.csis.org