FTI Consulting UK Public Affairs Snapshot: Vision 2035 – Has the Critical Minerals Strategy struck gold, or do the Government need to dig deeper?

Governments across the globe are in competition to secure access to the finite raw materials that underpin modern life. Conscious the UK cannot afford to be left behind in this race, the government recently released the Critical Minerals Strategy, ‘Vision 2035’. This Strategy builds on the 2022 strategy published by the previous government, which was criticised for being both too generic and having little in the way of a practical and funded action plan. Certainly, the new strategy goes further in detailing the government’s desire to carve out a resilient foothold in an increasingly competitive landscape. However, if it is definitive targets that industry seeks, then this strategy is not, on the face of it, the panacea it could have been.  

The Strategy envisages a future in which the UK makes the most of what natural deposits are present here. These include lithium, tungsten and tin in Cornwall, further deposits of lithium in Durham, tellurium and antimony in Mid-Tyrone and nickel and cobalt in Aberdeenshire. However, in most cases, exploitation of these sources remains theoretical without the financial investment needed to realise them. This brings a series of challenges, not only for the government as it seeks to create an investment environment in which businesses are willing to commit large upfront capital, but also for developers who must navigate uncertainty around funding and – in some cases – face opposition from councils and communities over environmental concerns. 

Thematically, Vision 2035 is designed to align with the government’s Modern Industrial Strategy, which aims to promote economic growth in clean energy, defence, life sciences and advanced manufacturing – all of which are underpinned by critical minerals. As such, the Strategy acknowledges that without secure access to critical minerals, the government’s broader economic ambitions are at risk. However, emphasis is placed firmly on strengthening domestic supply-chain resilience, rather than positioning the UK as a future exporter of those resources that exist to be exploited. Recognising that domestic deposits offer some untapped potential, the Strategy frames these largely as a means of reducing the UK’s vulnerability. In doing so, it may be missing an opportunity to develop a more ambitious, export-oriented critical minerals sector that could deliver additional economic growth. 

Recent experience has shown that in the UK, grand political ambitions for major extractive projects rarely translate into real-world delivery. Taken on their own merits, such schemes can look hugely appealing – promising economic stimulus, regional investment, greater security of supply, and potential new export markets. Yet fears over environmental damage, disruption to local communities, and the prospect of industrial scars on previously untouched landscapes too often lead to paralysis. Fracking is the clearest example, a policy on which successive governments have blown alternately hot and cold. Such episodes have left policymakers wary of betting too heavily on the idea of a home‑grown mining boom, even as demand for these resources grows globally. 

More than a manifesto for getting spades in the ground, the Strategy recognises that international partnerships will play a key role in securing the UK’s supply and targets priority partners such as the US, EU, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India and Japan. Walking a tightrope between a reboot of relations with the EU, a softening of UK-China relations, and a pragmatic approach to the Trump administration has been a challenge for the government. Good relations with all three could mean the UK is in a strong position to secure a deal on critical minerals with these nations.  

As a relatively small player in a big geopolitical game, the UK’s influence will depend on the strength of its alliances. Yet the government’s strategy of balancing three global relationships – with Washington, Brussels, and Beijing – risks spreading its diplomatic capital too thin. Each partnership offers opportunity, but Europe demands alignment, China requires compromise, and the US expects loyalty. In a race for resources the UK cannot win alone, but attempting to back all three racehorses may prove perilous. 

Any agreements will, however, be flying into fierce geopolitical headwinds. The tariff war launched by President Trump is part of a broader trend towards greater self-sufficiency. The War in Ukraine was a further stark warning for the West, forcing nations to recognise their dependence on states like Russia and emphasising the importance of secure supply chains for national security. Control of Ukraine’s natural deposits of minerals have become a prominent feature in peace-making efforts. In April, the US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund was signed, leveraging Ukraine’s mineral refining strengths to increase economic ties with the US and lay a foundation for the region’s economic recovery. 

In comparison to other major international actors, the UK is lagging behind in the critical minerals race. Whilst Vision 2035 does mark a concerted attempt for the UK to get some ‘skin in the game’, it is noticeably less ambitious and far less comprehensive than pledges made by peers. Last year, the French government announced that it is providing €500 million to the country’s national minerals fund, and the German government announced a €1 billion fund for investment in critical raw materials. The £50 million funding allocation outlined in the UK strategy looks paltry in comparison.  

Furthermore, Vision 2035 risks being undermined by a lack of practical detail on government investment. Whether this funding will be sustained over the next decade will also be at the forefront of investors’ minds, given we will have at least two further General Elections before 2035. Industry stakeholders have consistently called for greater clarity on the specific forms of support available and the types of projects that would qualify for government backing – and the Strategy is another failed opportunity to do this, unless practical actions flow from it quickly.  

Looking ahead, in the absence of clear next steps from the government, the UK’s success in securing its critical minerals supply will depend on the quality of implementation. While industry calls for some much-needed clarity, Vision 2035 can – for now – be read as an expression of ambition, rather than the roadmap required for robust delivery.