Response to the the European Commission’s public consultation on the Critical Raw Materials Regulation – COM(2023) 160 final

In this reaction paper, Generation Climate Europe (GCE) expresses its concerns regarding the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation establishing a  framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials published on the 16th of March 2023. In addition, we suggest potential elements for the improvement of the draft. In sum, our concerns on the Regulation revolve around: 

1. The push for mining with  minimal attention on the long-term and intergenerational perspectives on its negative social and environmental impacts, not just in Europe, but also in the Global South through Strategic Partnerships;
2. The lack of safeguards for civil society, and the absence of stakeholder involvement in the procedures of Strategic Partnerships and Strategic Projects and, in particular, in the newly created Critical Raw Materials Board;
3. The lack of focus on circular and consumption reduction practices which would challenge the assumptions of a linear economy and better integrate the Proposal with the goals of the European Green Deal (such as the right to repair).

Intergenerational justice states that the rights of past, present and future generations to live on a healthy planet are equal. Intergenerational justice requires a significant mindset change that considers the long-term impact of today’s choices and actions. At the basis of the Critical Raw Materials Regulation Proposal is the EU’s short-term willingness to become less dependent on critical raw materials by third countries. An example of this being that  one of the main changes brought by the Proposal regards the permit granting process: giving so-called ‘Strategic Projects’ a priority status in the pace and the resources committed by institutional actors to insure an efficient process.

Mining activities are essential for the digital and green transitions (1). However, it is known that mining activities have various long-term social and environmental impacts. This necessarily creates trade-offs between the respect of intergenerational justice, the objectives of the EU’s Green Deal – in particular climate neutrality by 2050, and preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity – and the objectives that the Regulation is pursuing instead (2). For instance, when it comes to the Green Deal’s objective of a “just transition” (3) the question arises on how, if the practice of mining damages biodiversity and socially affects the most vulnerable groups, these two strategies can be compatible in the first place, without the Regulation or subsequent implementing instruments further addressing the trade-offs between the two. 

It is also appropriate to note that the problem of fostering increased mining through the Proposal does not stop in Europe, as 95% of the social and environmental impacts of the international supply chains needed to satisfy the EU’s demand for raw materials take place outside the EU borders (4). Mining is an important activity in many countries in the Global South, nevertheless, long-term mining also has harmful consequences for both present and future generations, specifically in the context of intergenerational justice, harming riverine ecology, hurting the livelihoods of local communities and creating serious health risks (5) (6). To address these issues, it is critical to have a comprehensive strategy that considers the social, economic, and environmental aspects of mining and makes sure that the advantages of mining are fairly divided among all present and future stakeholders of the world. 

With regards to resource-rich third countries, the Proposal sets out to strengthen its ‘Strategic Partnerships’ to amplify the EU’s diversification of supply chains in  Chapter VI. It provides a framework for the EU to cooperate with mutually supportive countries on critical raw materials.. At the moment, the risks and negative externalities described above are not  sufficiently addressed  in the Proposal, which only refers to the necessity for Strategic Projects – as well as Strategic Partnerships – to be of “mutual benefit for the Union and the third country concerned by adding value in that country.” (7) In the amended Proposal for the Regulation, which, as such is supposedly directly applicable, we expect a clearer definition on what “mutual benefit” and “added value” mean in this context. 

1. Mononen, ‘Social and environmental impacts of mining activities in the EU’ (last accessed 28 May 2023).

2. Politico, ‘Europe’s green dilemma: Mining key minerals without destroying nature’ (last accessed 28 May 2023).

3. European Investment Bank, ‘Supporting the Just Transition Mechanism – comprehensive proposal of the EIB Group’ (last accessed 28 May 2023).

4. Malik and others, ‘International spillovers embodied in the EU’s supply chains’ (SDSN, 2022). 

5. The Mail &  Guardian, ‘The human cost of South Africa’s mining and corporate riches’ (last accessed 28 May 2023). 

6. Community Care for the Environment or Institute for Community Care for the Far East Mimika Region, ‘Freeport Mining and its Environmental Impacts on the Riverine Ecosystem’ (last accessed 28 May 2023). 

7. EU Commission, COM(2023) 160 final, Article 5(1)(e); and Article 33(1)(c)(iv).

As it is currently written, the text of the Proposal does not foresee participation of civil society at any stage in the composition and deliberations of the European Critical Raw Materials Board, the organ  in charge of reviewing applications for the status of Strategic Projects. In  light of the concerns on mining described above, it is necessary to ensure that stakeholders from organised civil society – whether in Europe or in third countries – have a role in  the process of developing Strategic Projects and Partnerships,  to ensure that there is an endorsement of the agreements and their conditions that apply thereto on a local level as well. This will create a more direct thread of collaboration between the Board, the Commission, and local communities, in addition  to the existing procedures of stakeholder involvement at the national level. Permanent youth representation in these additional consultations is also necessary in the light of intergenerational justice and the long-term effects of mining highlighted in section 1.  

In terms of implementation of the projects, it is also concerning that Article 7(2) of the Regulation refers to Strategic Project as having overriding public interest or serving public health and safety, as it is unclear how a high level of environmental protection and safeguards of consultations with stakeholders can be ensured, when overriding public interest can be used to approve of projects notwithstanding these guarantees. As it stands, the expediency of approving Strategic Project risks to be in conflict with deliberative and inclusive consultations. The environmental and social risks above are risks that involve every segment of the civil society of the States, whether  within the EU or third countries, that will decide to take part in Strategic Projects and Strategic Partnerships.

The text of the Commission’s Proposal emphasizes consideration of social and environmental factors in carrying out Strategic Projects. One of the goals of the Proposal is also to improve the circularity and reduce the environmental footprint of the CRM markets, including the introduction of minimum recycled content thresholds and monitoring the composition of CRM incorporated in products (8). However, we believe that the Regulation falls short of challenging adequately the prevailing linear thinking and consumerism paradigm. 

The proposal does not set a significant recycling target to contribute to the EU’s goal of doubling circular material use rate (CMUR) by 2030 (9). It has a target of covering at least 15% of EU annual CRM consumption from domestically recycled material by 2030, but for the CMUR to reach double by 2030 as planned, i.e., 23.4%, there needs to be  a 15-fold increase of the average growth rate from 2010-2021. Currently, EU’s CMUR from 2010-2021 rose from 10.8% to 11.7% which is only 0.9% after a decade (10). 

However, a 15-fold increase by 2030 is very unlikely to be achieved with the current low domestic recycled material target in the regulation. Therefore, a  revision and increase of ambition in recycling targets seems necessary. In this regard, evidence from the implementation of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive also shows the difficulty experienced by member states to scale-up recycling and recovery capacity. The last available data show that almost all member states fail to reach the EU target of 65% collection and 85% recycling rate for WEEE (11). Given these difficulties, an increased focus on the right to repair and reuse of e-waste, which is a major source of environmental issues both in Europe and abroad, is necessary. Indeed, the Proposal does not include measures and targets for the priority objectives for waste policy according to the EU Waste Framework Directive (i.e., waste prevention, reuse, and repair) and only recycling has been prioritized. Only through repair and reuse, and recycling, the possibility for reduction of resource demand of the EU arises. Merely improving the stability of raw-materials supply chains while maintaining high consumption levels is not sufficient to limit the environmental and social effects of mining. Indeed, to challenge the model of a linear economy, we need to achieve the absolute reduction of resource consumption and this initiative is a crucial opportunity to address it.

8. Ibid, p. 38.

9. EU Commission, COM (2020) 98 final, Article 1.

10. European Environmental Agency, ‘Circular material use rate in Europe (8th EAP)’ (last accessed 9 June 2023). 

11. ECOS, ‘Call to revise EU legislation for waste electrical and electronic equipment’ (last accessed 9 June 2023).

In accordance with the concerns above, our recommendations on the Proposal are:

1. Permanently involving civil society in the Critical Raw Materials Board, including youth representatives – not only with regard to  the Strategic Projects within the EU, but also within the Strategic Partnerships abroad. 
2. Including mechanisms to safeguard environmental and social interests in the case of Strategic Projects being defined as overriding public interest projects. This can include giving representatives of the local communities hearing at the Critical Raw Materials Board, as well as conducting rigorous and transparent environmental impact assessments and life cycle analyses.
3. Reducing resource consumption to mitigate the environmental and social impacts associated with the extraction, processing, and disposal of CRMs that contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, deforestation, and habitat destruction. With this aim, increasing recycling targets and increasing measures addressed to reuse and repair and clarifying how the CRM Regulation interacts with the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Directive and the EU Waste Framework Directive is necessary.