To open our interview series with the MateriNex CIG Chairs and Co-Chairs, we speak with Peter about his priorities for the coming term, the choices behind sustainable raw materials and the opportunities for collaboration in Flanders. Congratulations on your re-election as Co-Chair of the MateriNex Common Interest Group on Strategic and Critical Raw Materials, Tom.
1. What would you most like to achieve as Co-Chair of the CIG?
Europe talks endlessly about critical raw materials. My ambition is simple: less talking, more doing. We need to move from MoUs, reports and roadmaps to permits, plants, partnerships and production. If Europe wants strategic autonomy, it cannot outsource every uncomfortable step of the value chain.
Over the next two years, I want MateriNex to become a place where industry, researchers and policymakers stop defending their silos and start building projects together. The energy transition will not happen in PowerPoint. Nor will it happen through technologies that are disconnected from industrial reality, like ionic liquids or deep eutectic solvents.
Flanders has all the ingredients: strong research groups, a world-class chemical cluster, major ports and growing industrial initiatives such as Flanders Metals Valley. What we now need is integration. I would like to see the emergence of Critical Raw Materials Hubs that connect processing, refining and recycling activities into coherent industrial ecosystems.
The real challenge is not technological. It is organisational. Can we move beyond fragmented projects and align around a shared long-term vision? That is the question. And I believe MateriNex can help provide the answer.
2. How has your career shaped your understanding of sustainable raw materials?
My documentary work on responsible mining and refining in Europe has taught me, often the hard way, one important lesson: most people struggle with trade-offs.
Too often, sustainability is presented as a choice between industry and the environment. That is a false choice. Without critical chemicals there are no critical metals. Without critical metals there is no cleantech. And without cleantech there is no energy transition. At the same time, without robust environmental and social standards there is no social licence. That is the reality we must navigate.
What I have learned is that sustainable raw materials are not about avoiding difficult choices. They are about managing them responsibly. Europe cannot simply outsource extraction and refining, then claim the moral high ground while consuming the end products. Strategic autonomy requires accepting responsibility for the entire value chain.
The challenge for Europe is therefore not technological but societal: can we move beyond entrenched positions and find solutions that combine industrial competitiveness, environmental protection and social legitimacy? I am convinced we must. Whether we will remains an open question.
3. Where do you see the strongest opportunity for Flemish and European collaboration?
Europe's greatest weakness is fragmentation. We have world-class scientists, innovative companies and strong industrial clusters, but too often they work alongside each other rather than with each other.
The biggest opportunity lies in connecting mining, refining, manufacturing, recycling and substitution into integrated value chains. No single country and no single company will solve the critical materials challenge alone. The winners will be ecosystems, not organisations.
That is why I believe Flanders should be ambitious. We have a unique opportunity to connect our metallurgical expertise, chemical industry, logistics infrastructure and research excellence into integrated Critical Raw Materials Hubs.
The challenge is to shift from individual projects towards a shared mission. If we can achieve that, Flanders can play a role far beyond what its size would suggest.
4. Which trade-off deserves more attention in the mining versus recycling debate?
One of the most overlooked realities is that recycling alone will not provide the materials required for the energy transition.
Recycling is essential, but you cannot recycle what has not yet been produced, or what will remain in use for decades. The battery and rare-earth magnet sectors illustrate this perfectly. Demand is growing much faster than recyclable volumes become available.
For years, Europe has behaved as if investing in recycling allowed us to avoid difficult conversations about responsible mining. It does not. Anyone who wants wind turbines, electric vehicles and energy storage must also be willing to discuss where lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earths (especially the heavies dysprosium and terbium) will come from.
Pretending otherwise is not environmental leadership. It is wishful thinking and even hypocritical. The uncomfortable reality is that the metals will be mined somewhere. The real question is whether we prefer production under high environmental and social standards, or whether we continue outsourcing those impacts to regions where such standards may be weaker.
5. Which RAW MATTERS podcast conversation challenged your own thinking the most?
Every RAW MATTERS conversation has challenged me in some way. The podcast has been a continuous exercise in adding layers of complexity to my own thinking.
The biggest lesson has been that the critical raw materials debate is not a battle between heroes and villains. Whether speaking to mining executives, environmental campaigners, policymakers or industrial leaders, the same conclusion keeps returning: reality is more complicated than ideology.
If I had to single out one conversation, it would be my discussion with Amir Abidov of UzTMK in Uzbekistan. That conversation reminded me how complacent Europe has become. We still tend to assume that the rest of the world is waiting for Europe to decide what comes next. It is not. Countries in Central Asia want partnerships with Europe on critical raw materials, but they are also building relationships elsewhere. They have options. The world is moving forward, with or without us.
That is why I often use the metaphor of the bus. The bus is leaving. The question for Europe, and for Flanders, is simple: do we get on, or do we remain at the bus stop debating the route while others drive away? The time for hesitation is over.
Thank you, Tom, for sharing your perspective and your ambitions for the MateriNex community.
For more conversations on critical raw materials and the choices shaping their future, explore the podcast here
