2523 In the first step, lithium is assessed using the FWE Nexus–Oriented Criticality Assessment and found to be systemically important due to its central role in energy storage, grid stability, and broader electrification pathways, as well as exposure to a concentrated global supply and long development timelines reflected in UNFC classifications. This screening outcome signals the need for strategic attention. In the second step, the MidReVa tool is applied to assess whether domestic midstream opportunities could plausibly be developed. Existing industrial facilities, energy infrastructure, workforce skills, and enabling conditions are screened to identify potential entry points for lithium refining or precursor production, as well as key constraints. Finally, the combined outputs inform structured policy dialogue, linking mineral strategy with industrial development, energy transition planning, and sustainability objectives. The demonstrator highlights how the workflow translates systemic risk identification into actionable, policy-relevant discussion without prescribing outcomes. The sequential logic is represented in Figure 4. Figure 154 Sequencing of nexus-based criticality screening and midstream readiness assessment to support policy dialogue 7. POLICY INTEGRATION AND STRUCTURED DECISION USE FRAMEWORKS The value of the integrated workflow lies not in producing scores but in structuring policy dialogue. Outputs from the FWE Nexus–oriented criticality assessment and the MidReVa screening are designed to feed directly into existing policy cycles. At the strategic level, nexus-critical minerals identified can inform national mineral strategies, diversification roadmaps, and security-of-supply planning. These results can be cross-referenced with industrial development plans to assess whether domestic processing pathways align with economic transformation objectives. Energy transition strategies can draw on the same outputs to anticipate material dependencies embedded in renewable deployment, storage expansion, and grid reinforcement (OECD, 2023). In budget and public investment processes, the combined assessments provide an evidence base for sequencing infrastructure upgrades, skills development, regulatory reform, and pilot investments. Rather than creating parallel analytical streams, the framework translates technical assessments into structured inputs for inter-ministerial coordination. Interpretation guardrails are essential. The methodology does not produce go/no-go decisions, nor does it rank countries or prescribe thresholds. Scores are screening-level signals to support deliberation. Weighting schemes, thresholds, and policy responses remain context-specific and must reflect national priorities, institutional capacity, and risk tolerance. The tools identify exposure, constraints, and opportunity pathways; they do not determine outcomes. Their function is to improve transparency and coherence, not to replace political judgement. Implementation faces governance challenges. Data fragmentation across geological surveys, energy authorities, industrial ministries, and environmental agencies remains a persistent constraint. Project maturity data may not be systematically classified; industrial asset inventories may be incomplete; and sustainability indicators may lack harmonization. Coordinated application therefore requires structured collaboration. Public technical institutions, such as geological surveys, statistical offices, regulatory agencies, and planning
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2