The European Investment Bank (EIB) mobilised €1.2bn ($1.3bn) for critical raw materials financing in 2025 and is backing projects across the value chain, as the EU aims to strengthen supply-chain resilience. Argus spoke to EIB vice-president Nicola Beer about the sector's biggest financing gaps, the case for a broader financing toolbox that includes greater equity and risk-sharing capacity, and Europe's efforts to build more diversified supply chains.
The EIB signed a framework agreement with Canada to support critical raw material investment. How important is foreign investment to Europe's long-term supply security, and is the EU doing enough to turn strategic partnerships into viable projects?
Europe will never achieve critical raw-material security by trying to produce everything itself. What we need is diversification including more capacity at home, but also several reliable international partners. Canada has the abundant mineral resources Europe needs and Europe brings industrial demand, technology and capital. Bringing the two together should be a natural fit.
But identifying common interests is the easy part. A mine or processing facility can take years to develop, requires large upfront investment and has to remain viable through volatile commodity-price cycles. Investors need confidence that there will be buyers for the material, while European industry needs confidence that the supply will actually be there.
Where along the value chain does the EIB expect to deploy most of its capital over the next few years?
I would resist choosing one part of the value chain. A mine without processing capacity or a refinery without reliable feedstock do not create resilience. Our approach is to invest across the value chain, from extraction and processing to refining, recycling, substitution and innovation. Financing needs will depend on the material and the bottleneck. Our job is to identify where investment can make the greatest difference to Europe's resilience and competitiveness.
Likewise, there is no simple ranking of critical raw materials that determines what we finance. What matters is where Europe is most vulnerable and where investment can make the greatest difference. This is why we are developing a heat map that looks beyond supply concentration to the consequences any disruption would have for European industry.
The EIB has said EU mineral exploration spending will need to rise to meet the Critical Raw Materials Act's domestic extraction goals. Could the EIB play a more direct role in supporting exploration projects?
Exploration is where we have one of the biggest financing gaps and it is the highest-risk part of the value chain. Our study estimates that European exploration spending needs to increase from around €200mn to around €2bn a year. But that is an investment need for Europe, not an EIB financing target.
The challenge is that only a tiny fraction of exploration prospects become operating mines. Traditional debt finance is therefore often not the right instrument at the earliest stages.
If Europe wants significantly more exploration, it needs to find ways of absorbing more of that early-stage risk. The EIB could play its part in that, but the right frameworks and mandates would need to be in place. The discussions around the next EU budget will be decisive in determining how much risk Europe is prepared to share in early-stage exploration.
You have spoken about the need for additional equity and risk-sharing instruments. Could the EIB eventually take a larger role in providing equity capital to critical minerals projects?
There is no single financing instrument that fits all projects. The risks are very different depending on whether you are looking at exploration, a first-of-a-kind technology, a processing plant or an established industrial operation. The EIB already goes beyond traditional lending. We use venture debt to support innovative companies such as TWAICE Technologies, which develops software to help improve the performance and lifetime of batteries used in electric vehicles and energy storage. But that will not be enough for some of the highest-risk projects.
Europe needs a broader financing toolbox, including more equity and risk-sharing capacity. The EIB can play an important role in that toolbox, but the objective should be to use the right instrument for the right risk, not simply to replace debt with equity.
The EIB has emphasised the importance of transparent pricing and market data in critical mineral markets. What progress is being made on the proposed price index?
It is true that we need to make opaque markets more transparent. Investors can deal with risk but they struggle with uncertainty. One idea under discussion is whether anonymised transaction data from trading platforms could contribute to more reliable price indices, validated by established price-reporting agencies. This could build on existing platforms or on a new reporting mechanism through which market participants provide relevant transaction data.
The aim is to establish credible reference prices based on actual transactions, rather than to set prices politically. Better price signals would give companies and investors a more reliable basis for long-term contracts and investment decisions.
What would success look like for the EIB's critical minerals strategy?
Success would mean that in five years we spend less time talking about what Europe lacks and more time talking about what we have built. I want to see new critical raw-material projects in Europe, stronger processing and recycling capacity, and a much broader network of reliable international partners. I want European companies to treat resilience as a permanent part of investment and procurement decisions rather than something we only discuss after the next supply shock.
