Recycling is indispensable to the security and sustainability of critical minerals supply for clean energy transitions. As the shift to a clean energy system accelerates, substantial investments in new mines and refining capacity, especially in geographically diverse regions, will be required to produce essential minerals such as copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earths. While recycling does not eliminate the need for mining investment (or the associated revenues for resource-rich countries), it creates a valuable secondary supply source that reduces reliance on new mines and enhances supply security for countries importing minerals. This sets critical minerals apart from fossil fuels that cannot be reused (and whose use via combustion results in long-lived emissions in the atmosphere). Expanding recycling infrastructure can also help build reserves to buffer against future supply disruptions. Moreover, scaling up recycling mitigates the environmental and social impacts related to mining and refining while preventing waste from end-use technologies ending up in landfills.

This first-of-its-kind report on critical minerals recycling presents key policy recommendations to accelerate the uptake of recycling practices. Building on its landmark report in 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has been deepening its analysis on the latest market trends and key policy issues around critical mineral supply chains through extensive data collection, modelling and close dialogue with industry stakeholders. At the IEA Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Summit in September 2023, participants highlighted the critical role of recycling in enhancing mineral security. Responding to this growing emphasis, the report assesses the current state of recycling, explores the potential for secondary supply, and presents policy recommendations to scale up recycling.

Despite growing policy ambitions, the use of recycled materials has so far failed to keep pace with rising material consumption. In the case of copper, which plays a central role in all electrical applications, the share of secondary supply (including direct use scrap) in total demand fell from 37% in 2015 to 33% in 2023. Similarly, the share for recycled nickel decreased from 35% to 31% over the same period. The main exception is aluminium, which benefits from well-established waste management programmes and supportive regulations, where the recycled share increased modestly from 24% to 26%.

Recycling of battery metals is an emerging commercial opportunity and is growing fast. Production of recycled battery metals, such as nickel, cobalt and lithium, has recently seen rapid growth, albeit from a low base. When assessing recovered metal volumes relative to theoretically available feedstock, rates surged to over 40% for nickel and cobalt and to 20% for lithium in 2023. The market value of recycled battery metals also experienced nearly 11-fold growth between 2015 and 2023, with 40% of this growth occurring in the last three years. Although electric vehicle (EV) batteries are not yet available for recycling at scale, these developments indicate vast potential for expanding recycling, if the right policy incentives are in place.

Policy momentum is gaining strength, with a surge in new policies and regulations. According to the IEA’s Critical Minerals Policy Tracker, more than 30 new policy measures related to critical mineral recycling have been introduced since 2022. These policies generally fall into four categories: strategic plans, extended producer responsibility (EPR), financial incentives and cross-border trade regulations. Some also include regulatory mandates such as industry-specific targets for material recovery, collection rates and minimum recycled content. However, most strategies are not yet comprehensive. Among the 22 countries and regions surveyed, only 3 had a broad framework that includes clear targets, implementation mechanisms, monitoring systems and economic incentives.

A successful scale-up of recycling can lower the need for new mining activity by 25‑40% by 2050 in a scenario that meets national climate pledges. While accelerated clean energy deployment calls for a substantial expansion of new mines and refineries to meet material demand, it also creates an opportunity for secondary supply to play an increasingly valuable role. In the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS), which reflects national climate pledges, recycling reduces new mine development needs by 40% for copper and cobalt, and by 25% for lithium and nickel by 2050. The market value of recycled energy transition minerals grows fivefold, reaching USD 200 billion by 2050. As a result, requirements for primary materials start to decline around mid‑century. Nonetheless, investments in new mines remain essential as supply levels required by mid‑century are still higher than today’s production and existing mines face natural declines in output.

Enhancing critical minerals recycling offers substantial financial and sustainability benefits. In the APS, some USD 600 billion of mining investments is required through 2040, while achieving net zero emissions by 2050 necessitates around USD 800 billion. Without an increase in recycling, these amounts would be 30% higher, increasing the burden of mobilising the necessary financing. Recycling can also mitigate the environmental and social impacts associated with mineral production. On average, recycled energy transition minerals such as nickel, cobalt and lithium incur 80% less greenhouse gas emissions than primary materials produced from mining. This translates into a 35% cumulative reduction in emissions from the production of lithium, nickel and cobalt required to meet their needs in climate-driven scenarios over the period to 2040.

The energy security benefits of recycling are greatest in regions with limited mineral resources and high clean energy technology deployment. In Europe, under the APS context, secondary supply from batteries is projected to meet about 30% of the region’s lithium and nickel demand by 2050, notably higher than the global average of around 20%. This could substantially reduce either import bills or investment needs for domestic supply.

There is a major gap in today’s recycling rates between advanced and developing economies. In the case of electronic waste (e‑waste), collection rates are notably higher in advanced economies than in emerging and developing economies. Collection rates in developing economies in Asia and Latin America are below 5%, and just 1% in Africa, with little improvement since 2010, whereas rates stand at 30% in Japan and Korea and 40-50% in Europe and North America. Support to strengthen collection and recycling infrastructure in developing economies, along with technology and skill transfer, can help prevent waste from ending up in landfills while fostering economic development in these regions.

Manufacturing scrap currently dominates the feedstock for battery recycling, but this balance shifts rapidly towards end-of-life EV batteries. Scrap from manufacturing processes still accounts for two-thirds of available recycling feedstock in 2030. From 2035 onwards, however, end-of-life EV and storage batteries take over as the largest source and represent over 90% of available feedstock by 2050. Lithium-ion batteries are one of the key technologies pushing up demand for critical minerals, but they also promise to be a major source for metal recovery.

Developments in battery chemistries have major implications for recycling. In the past few years, lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cathodes have gained significant market share from nickel-based chemistries, making up around 40% of EV batteries deployed in 2023, with their share expected to remain high. This shift impacts recycling economics due to LFP’s lower material value. This underscores the need for tailored business models, such as toll-based recycling, supported by regulation and strict mandates to prevent LFP batteries from ending up in landfills. Lessons from the 99% recycling rate of lead-acid batteries in the United States, achieved despite their low residual value, illustrate that well-designed policy measures can overcome economic hurdles in recycling.

Battery recycling capacity is expanding rapidly, led by the People’s Republic of China (hereafter, “China”). In 2023, global capacity for pretreatment and material recovery grew by 50% year-on-year, with China accounting for 80% of both. Analysis of the project pipeline indicates that China is on track to retain 75% of global pretreatment capacity and 70% of material recovery capacity in 2030. China recently announced the formation of China Resources Recycling Group Ltd., a state-owned enterprise dedicated to recycling and reusing end-of-life batteries, scrap steel and e‑waste.

Battery recycling capacity is outpacing available feedstock, although the picture varies by region. If all announced projects come online as scheduled, global recycling capacity in 2030 could be seven times the available feedstock, even with the rapid levels of battery deployment achieved in the APS. However, the picture changes rapidly after 2030 as EVs reach end of life and feedstock availability increases sharply, surpassing announced capacity by 60% by 2040. There are major regional differences. China continues to see excess capacity relative to domestic feedstock. In Europe and the United States, excess capacity dissipates after 2030, and announced recycling capacity covers only 30% of feedstock by 2040. This is higher than in India, where the coverage in 2040 is just 10%.

Battery recycling could meet 20-30% of lithium, nickel and cobalt demand by 2050, but this depends on improving collection rates. The recovered metal volumes from available feedstock are influenced by many factors, with collection rates being the most critical. Under the assumption of continued increases in collection rates, in the APS, recycled volumes from batteries could reach 20-30% of demand for lithium, nickel and cobalt by 2050. However, the range varies depending on plausible variations in collection rates, from 30-40% with higher collection rates and 15-25% with lower rates. The reuse of EV batteries in storage applications meets around 10% of global storage demand by 2050.

The export of used EVs can significantly affect the global volume of recycling feedstock. A significant number of used conventional cars are exported from advanced to developing economies, but it is uncertain if this trend will continue with EVs, with major implications for battery recycling. In the APS, if EV exports mirror patterns of conventional cars, available battery feedstock for recycling in advanced economies and China could drop by 25% (1 terawatt-hour [TWh]) by 2050, while developing economies see a 50% increase (0.5 TWh); this is less than the decrease in advanced economies and China due to delayed battery retirement. Additional recycling capacity will be needed in importing regions, particularly for pretreatment facilities, to avoid waste and loss of potential feedstock for recycling. Clarity on EV export rules and conditions is important to reduce uncertainties and encourage recycling investments in both exporting and importing regions.

Relatively slow development of midstream battery supply projects is a major uncertainty for recyclers. While battery cell production projects are expanding in regions such as Europe and the United States (US), plans for the midstream supply chain such as precursor cathode active material (pCAM) and cathode active material (CAM) remain limited. By 2030, nearly 90% of these capacities are expected to remain concentrated in China, reducing the security benefits of recycling as recyclers need to compete to supply CAM producers, and cell manufacturers continue to import CAM. Strategic support for midstream development and vertically integrated projects could create more reliable domestic off-takers for recyclers. Strategic partnerships with countries with expanding CAM production, such as Korea, could provide a supplementary solution and serve as a valuable off-taker for European and US recyclers.

Greater clarity on policies and regulations is essential to support the uptake of battery recycling. The absence of clear, long-term regulations including export rules for used batteries and EVs as well as the implementation and enforcement of EPR creates barriers to investment. Providing long-term visibility for policies and regulations is crucial for instilling confidence in investors and recycling companies.

Scaling up the recycling of end-of-life scrap from traditional industries is essential to alleviate pressure on critical mineral supplies, particularly for copper. Copper is an essential material used in a wide range of electrical applications, but a supply deficit is beginning to appear on the horizon. By 2035 announced projects are sufficient only to meet 70% of copper requirements in the APS. Increasing copper recycling is one of the most critical actions needed to ensure that the shift towards a more electrified and renewables-rich energy system is not held up by a bottleneck in supplies.

Opportunities to boost secondary copper supply are rising as scrap volumes surge from around 2030. Copper scrap availability is expected to grow alongside consumption until 2030, then outpace demand growth. In the APS, scrap volumes increase from 16 million tonnes (Mt) today to 19 Mt by 2030 and 27 Mt by 2050, theoretically able to cover three-quarters of projected demand. Construction remains the largest source of end-of-life copper scrap, but scrap from EVs and storage is set to grow the fastest, expanding more than 35‑fold between 2030 and 2050. Enhancing collection rates and investing in secondary processing capacity are key to fully leverage this potential and ease future supply pressures.

Strong policy actions can further raise the share of secondary copper supply. The historical share of secondary supply in total copper demand has stagnated since 2015, but the anticipated surge in end-of-life scrap post‑2030 is set to reverse this trend. A combination of policies – raising collection rates for legacy applications such as construction and cables, mandating recycling, improving sorting systems, and investing in new secondary smelters – can further elevate secondary supply’s contribution. Facilitating strategic partnerships between copper scrap supply chain actors such as scrap collectors, pre‑processors and secondary smelters can also help optimise capacity utilisation and increase scrap trade efficiency. In the APS, the share of secondary copper supply in total demand (excluding direct use scrap) rises from 17% today to nearly 40% by 2050, underscoring the critical role of copper recycling in easing future supply pressures.

Metal recovery from e‑waste needs much more attention from industry and policy makers. Despite rising awareness, only a quarter of e‑waste generated in 2022 was documented as properly collected and recycled. Since 2010, global e‑waste generation has risen five times faster than collection and recycling efforts, resulting in a decreasing share of recycled e‑waste. In 2022 alone, metals contained in e‑waste were valued at around USD 90 billion, with only USD 28 billion recovered and turned into valuable materials. Of the 193 countries assessed in our report, only 80 had e‑waste regulations as of June 2023, suggesting ample scope for strengthening policy actions. Stricter regulations and penalties for illegal dumping, enhanced traceability, and improvement in pretreatment processes can significantly boost critical mineral recovery from e‑waste.

Rare earth recycling from permanent magnets is limited today but the rise of EVs and wind power brings significant potential to step up efforts. Currently, most rare earth recycling feedstock originates from manufacturing losses, with end-of-life permanent magnet recycling constrained by low collection rates (below 15%) and challenging economics. However, the growing use of permanent magnets in EV motors and wind turbines could drive up collection rates. High collection rates alone, however, may not be enough, as recyclers often prioritise more accessible or higher-value materials such as copper or battery metals. Improving recycling rates in this area is likely to require additional measures such as targeted economic incentives, rare earth recycling mandates and consumer commitments to using recycled content in products. In the APS, secondary rare earth supply triples by 2050, contributing to more secure and diversified rare earth supplies.

Recovering minerals from mine waste offers an opportunity to turn environmental liabilities into valuable resources. Mining generates around 100 billion tonnes of waste every year, in addition to the sizeable amount already existing in active, inactive and closed tailings. This waste volume is set to increase by almost 90% over 2020 levels by 2030. Reprocessing mine waste, or tailings, can reduce waste generation and mitigate environmental impacts such as water contamination, safety risks and soil pollution. For closed or abandoned sites, it also presents an opportunity for environmental remediation. Previously, the minerals left in mine waste were considered economically unviable, but declining ore quality and future supply concerns are making reprocessing more appealing. For instance, in Chile, the copper content in mine waste with higher grades than primary sources is poised to rise from 1.6 Mt in 2005 to 5.6 Mt by 2050. Realising this potential will require comprehensive waste resource mapping, supporting research and development (R&D) for new recovery technologies, providing economic incentives, and addressing liability barriers related to mine waste at abandoned sites.

Recycling businesses can be profitable, but innovative pricing schemes and business models are key to improving economic viability. Profits for recycling energy transition minerals may be lower than for bulk materials, but increased policy support and feedstock availability can strengthen the business case. Market-based battery metal recycling is particularly sensitive to material price fluctuations, requiring recyclers to have robust balance sheets and working capital to weather volatility and commodity cycles. New models such as toll-based recycling and revenue-sharing could offer recyclers better economic stability and encourage long-term investments, especially for LFP batteries.

New technologies hold promises for improving recycling efficiency. Current technologies often struggle with the complexity and diversity of products containing critical minerals, resulting in lower recovery rates and material loss. Emerging technologies such as advanced sorting, novel chemical and physical processes, and new quality control methods can help overcome these challenges. Positive trends are evident: lithium-ion battery recycling patents grew at an average annual rate of 56% from 2017 to 2022, and venture capital investment in battery and waste recycling surged between 2022 and 2023. Policy incentives and collaborations between research institutions and industry will be essential to bring these promising technologies to market.

Countries are taking action to regulate scrap trade to reduce unmanaged waste leakage and incentivise domestic recycling capacity. In addition to national regulations, international waste agreements such as the Basel Convention and the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development Decision on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes continue to strengthen the control of transboundary waste trade. These measures will help ensure that exported scrap is properly recycled and sustainably treated in importing regions. However, effective and nimble implementation is essential to prevent these regulations from hindering the growth of the global recycling industry. For battery metals, a harmonised international classification of lithium-ion battery waste and black mass would provide much-needed clarity, reducing uncertainties around regulations concerning these emerging waste streams.

Recycling is not free from environmental and social impacts. Poorly managed battery recycling may result in pollution from waste residues, water contaminants and harmful emissions. In many countries, the waste collection stage often involves child labour or unsafe practices. While various voluntary standards are emerging, there are still significant gaps in social and governance aspects, requiring efforts to strengthen existing recycling standards. Traceability mechanisms can allow stakeholders to verify that materials are sourced and recycled according to best practices. Such mechanisms can also allow consumers to favour recyclers with higher environmental and social performance.

Policy makers need to look beyond recycling to integrate broader circular economy principles. Opportunities beyond recycling include circular product design, repair, refurbishing, reuse and repurposing. Circular design principles reflect the importance of improving products’ lifetime and facilitating easier recycling at the end of life. Increasing repairability via modular designs that make disassembly easier is a strategy that can be used in EVs and electronics. Repurposing and reusing also offer significant waste reduction opportunities. By adopting a holistic approach that considers the entire product life cycle, policy makers, industry stakeholders and consumers can create more sustainable pathways for the use of critical minerals.

his report distils a set of key actions for policy makers to scale up critical minerals recycling.

1. Develop detailed long-term policy roadmaps: set clear targets and intermediate milestones to provide clarity on policy directions and greater certainty for investors.
2. Harmonise waste management and recycling policies to develop efficient secondary markets: facilitate international co‑operation to reduce trade barriers and minimise unmanaged leakages.
3. Strengthen domestic infrastructure with incentives and mandates: encourage investment in recycling capacity at national and regional levels with economic incentives.
4. Encourage traceability, standards and certifications to boost the consumption of recycled materials: the uptake of recycling industries is enabled by transparency and international best practices.
5. Provide targeted financial support for technology innovation, R&D and workforce training: ensure continued support for more efficient processes, scaling proven technologies and training a workforce ready for the new energy economy.
6. Strengthen recycling systems in emerging and developing economies: introduce new technical and financial instruments to support investment in regions most vulnerable to the effects of improper waste management.
7. Tackle data and information gaps: access to reliable and granular data is pivotal for efficient policy and investment choices.
8. Embrace a holistic approach beyond recycling: product design, reuse, repair and refurbishment can play a major role in ensuring sustainable mineral value chains.
9. Tackle environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues for recyclers: ESG impacts must be identified, minimised and mitigated to contribute to sustainable and responsible supply chains.