Brussels, 18 December – The EU Raw Materials Coalition warns that the European Commission’s ReSourceEU package risks becoming a militarised rebranding of Europe’s minerals strategy that weakens environmental and social standards, puts human rights at risk, reduces transparency and fails to fix the EU’s real structural vulnerabilities in mineral supply chains, including those affecting communities and rights-holders in mineral-producing regions.

ReSourceEU places a strong emphasis on joint stockpiling, joint purchasing, and demand aggregation, signalling a significant geopolitical prioritisation of access to raw materials. Yet, at the same time, the EU is actively weakening the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive through the first omnibus.  These new proposals to increase access to raw materials undermine the need for environmental and social safeguards, transparency and effective due diligence requirements necessary to protect affected communities, including Indigenous Peoples, in extraction and processing regions. With decision-making taking place behind closed doors and without the necessary tools to build responsible, rights-based and trusted supply chains, Europe risks diverting critical raw materials (CRM) away from the just energy transition and net-zero ambition, while exacerbating individual and collective human rights abuses, environmental damage and social injustice along global value chains that disproportionately affect resource-rich regions. 

“An estimated 54% of energy transition minerals are found on or near Indigenous Peoples’ territories. This gives Europe a clear responsibility to ensure that the rights, lives and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples in resource-rich regions are protected. Sadly, we are seeing a troubling rise in violence and criminalisation against communities defending their lands from mining projects imposed without Free, Prior and Informed Consent. The EU speaks of a secure and sustainable supply of raw materials, but supply chains that undermine Indigenous Peoples’ rights carry significant economic, legal and reputational risks. Without respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, raw material supply will be neither secure nor sustainable.” – Yblin Román Escobar, Policy Lead, SIRGE Coalition

The Coalition is also alarmed by growing pressure to dilute water protection under the revision of the Water Framework Directive to fast-track extractive projects. This risks sacrificing Europe’s rivers, groundwater and drinking water at a moment when water resilience should be a top political priority and sets a dangerous precedent for weakening safeguards in partnerships with mineral-producing countries, including those where communities depend directly on freshwater ecosystems. These plans go further than measures originally outlined in the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA).

Beyond governance failures, ReSourceEU does not correct Europe’s structural investment deficit. Despite funding being announced, most of it comes from existing funds that have already been earmarked, not only for minerals but also for other clean-tech projects. While the EU relies on coordination mechanisms and stockpiling, global competitors deploy far greater financial firepower. Since 2020, China has invested over USD 15 billion in overseas battery-metal projects, compared with roughly USD 1.7 billion by EU companies. Stockpiling may cushion short-term shocks, but it does not build diversified, resilient supply chains, which is the stated aim of the CRMA. By contrast, investment in capacity-building for rigid implementation of standards, permitting and assessments by authorities, and meaningful involvement of affected communities and Indigenous Peoples’ rights holders to deliver projects to the highest standards would do so. This is where the new Raw Materials Centre should be equipped with the right tools to build resilient supply chains while upholding and overseeing the highest individual and collective human rights and environmental standards. 

What truly strengthens strategic autonomy are increased circularity and demand reduction measures. This includes restrictions on the export of permanent-magnet scrap and targeted measures for aluminium and potentially copper. If implemented with high transparency and safeguards, these steps can strengthen EU circularity. We appreciate the commitment to present, where necessary, measures to restrict black mass exports beyond non-OECD countries. Ensuring that all battery black mass is kept within Europe is equally important and should be addressed in the forthcoming Circular Economy Act, reducing pressure for new extraction. 

“Joint purchasing without due diligence is a political gamble. States will fill warehouses with minerals whose origins have not been properly checked, then decide behind closed doors which sectors get them. The winners will almost certainly be the defence industry, not renewables or batteries.” – Diego Marin, Senior Policy Officer, EEB

In addition to circularity and reduction measures, enhanced transparency, strong human rights safeguards, and robust environmental protection are essential to securing resilient supply chains and building public trust, including trust with communities affected by mining and processing activities.  

Lastly, the coalition welcomes the announcement to work on standards-based markets with allies, building on existing standards, supply diversification and resilience criteria. Contracts for difference and price floors are also welcome to stabilise prices for more costly projects with high standards. It is positive that, under the new Innovation Fund call in 2026, eligibility for funding for clean-tech projects will be based on sourcing CRMs from EU offtake agreements and like-minded partners.

The EU Raw Materials Coalition calls on the Commission and Member States to:

• Reduce overall material demand through binding resource reduction targets, genuine circularity and high-quality recycling and repurposing. 
• Maintain and strengthen environmental law, including water protection as well as human rights due diligence across all mineral governance frameworks.
• Guarantee transparency, public access to information and meaningful participation in joint purchasing and stockpiling decisions.
• Prevent preferential access to CRMs for the defence industry at the expense of renewables, electricity grids and batteries.
• Shift from stockpiling alone toward direct public investment, coordinated EU-level financing and responsible ownership in strategic projects, with clear accountability for social and human-rights impacts.
• Ensure international partnerships are rights-based, mutually beneficial, supporting value creation, institutional capacity and long-term development rather than reinforcing dependency relationships
• Avoid repeating past mistakes in which importing economies externalise environmental costs. degradation, social harm and governance risks to producing regions, including Indigenous Peoples’ territories, consistent with the UN Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals’ call to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Europe must avoid a race for minerals for militarisation and instead build a resilient, rights-based and democratically accountable framework for sustainable resource use.

This is an EURMC press release, some members might have diverging views on some sections of the press release.

Sources:

• https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202508/1341210.shtml 

• https://ipisresearch.be/weekly-briefing/the-eu-critical-raw-materials-act-and-the-defence-industry/ 

• https://epthinktank.eu/2024/11/20/implementing-the-eus-critical-raw-materials-act/strategic-partnerships-signed-by-the-eu/

• https://hal.science/hal-05293866/document

• https://ieep.eu/publications/sourcing-critical-raw-materials-through-trade-and-cooperation-frameworks/

• https://www.somo.nl/the-eus-critical-minerals-crusade/

• https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/resourceeu-risks-becoming-a-rebranding-project-heres-what-it-needs-to-become-a-game-changer

• https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/the-risks-of-fast-tracking-mining-projects-under-the-crma/ 

Today’s release of 13 Strategic Projects outside of the EU under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) raises growing concerns from civil society over the European Union’s approach to Strategic Partnerships and mining investments outside its borders. The EU Raw Materials Coalition (EURMC) warns that these projects lack proper safeguards, transparency, and local involvement—putting human rights, Indigenous rights, and environmental protection at serious risk. 

While Green Deal goals were central to the commission’s approach to CRMs, militarisation takes centre stage, risking human rights and the environment, all while the omnibus packages wreak havoc on the EU’s ambitions set out in the Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence Directive and Battery Regulation.

Of the second batch, several selected projects are based in countries outside of the EU with weak industrial governance systems, raising red flags about how Strategic Partnerships are being implemented on the ground. The EU must live up to its commitments to human rights, international law, and democratic engagement by ensuring these projects do not replicate extractivist harms.

The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act was meant to help secure raw material supply chains. But in doing so, the EU must avoid exporting social and environmental harm. Strategic Projects carried out abroad cannot proceed without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples, whose territories are often disproportionately affected.

“With 54% of energy transition minerals located on or near Indigenous lands, the EU must ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination and FPIC are fully respected—both within and beyond Europe’s borders.”
— Yblin Román Escobar, Policy Advisor, SIRGE Coalition

Civil society is also alarmed by the Commission’s ongoing failure to provide information about how projects were selected, the criteria used, and how they will be monitored and evaluated—raising questions about the EU’s compliance with the Aarhus Convention and its own due diligence promises.

“The Strategic Projects list includes foreign mining ventures in countries with poor environmental oversight. Without clear criteria, safeguards, and public disclosure, these projects risk repeating colonial patterns of resource extraction.”
— Robin Roels, Coordinator, EU Raw Materials Coalition

The inclusion of Serbia’s Jadar lithium project, led by Rio Tinto, as a Strategic Project raises serious concerns. The project has been widely opposed by local communities, environmental defenders, and Serbian civil society, who successfully mobilised against it in 2021 due to its environmental risks, lack of transparency, and violations of democratic procedures. Its reappearance on the EU’s Strategic Projects list, despite unresolved legal, environmental, and social issues, suggests a troubling disregard for public opposition and due process. This move risks reigniting tensions on the ground and contradicts the EU’s own values of participatory governance and respect for local democracy and participation in decision-making.

“The EU just added fuel to fire. It had back an authoritarian regime and a corporation against whom 63% of the population now stand to fight at a time when the entire country is under blockade and violence. The EU will thus lose support in Serbia and the region and probably cause further social unrest. The fact that the Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić announced the Board’s decision more than a week before it was public, also raises questions of legitimacy behind the decision.”
— Aleksandar Matković, Research Associate, Institute of Economic Sciences

 The recent amicable visit of President Vučić visit to Moscow also raises questions. The EU must urgently rethink its approach. Civil society organisations call for full transparency, inclusive governance, and binding safeguards that place community rights, justice, and material sufficiency at the centre of the EU’s external raw materials strategy.

For further information, please contact:

Robin Roels 
EU Raw Materials Coalition Coordinator
robin.roels@eeb.org

Andreas Budiman
Communications Officer
andreas.budiman@eeb.org

Today, the EU Commission presented its long-awaited list of strategic projects under the EU Critical Raw Materials Act. The EU Raw Materials Coalition expresses serious concerns regarding the European Commission’s lack of transparency in the selection of these mining-related Strategic Projects, raising critical issues related to accountability, human rights, Indigenous rights, and public participation. 

While the EU aims to meet Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) targets and diversify supply, the current selection process risks ignoring the rights of affected communities and potentially triggering anti-mining protests. The EU must uphold its core values—human rights, international law, and environmental responsibility—in its raw materials policies, particularly within these strategic projects.

Robin Roels, Coordinator of the EU Raw Materials Coalition, raises concerns that the lack of transparency in the process undermines not only democratic oversight but also put into question the EU’s commitments under the Aarhus Convention:

“The opaque selection of Strategic Projects severely undermines public trust in the EU’s critical raw materials strategy. If the EU is serious about a fair and sustainable transition, it must open up this process to genuine scrutiny and ensure that community voices are heard. Civil society, Indigenous Peoples, affected local communities, and independent experts have been largely excluded from the decision-making process, leaving the assessment and prioritisation of projects unclear. Despite repeated requests, the full list of project applicants and the evaluation criteria remain undisclosed.”

Furthermore, the right of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is being consistently sidelined. Yblin Román Escobar, Policy Advisor of the SIRGE Coalition said: 

“With 54% of energy transition minerals located on or near Indigenous lands, the EU must ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination and FPIC are fully respected—both within and beyond Europe’s borders.”

Beyond transparency issues, corporate accountability remains a critical issue. Johanna Sydow, head of the International Environmental Policy Division of the Heinrich Böll Foundation said:

“During the negotiations of the legislative process of the Critical Raw Materials Act concerns about too weak human rights and environmental standards were silenced with reference to Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. However, the Omnibus Package recently proposed by the EU Commission significantly weakens this minimal criteria for imports within the raw materials sector. This is particularly alarming given the sector’s history and poses a long term threat to human and national security. This weakening undermines the EU’s credibility in pursuing high standards.”

Without strong safeguards, Strategic Projects risk enabling human rights abuses, Indigenous rights violations, and environmental harm, especially in regions with weak governance. The EU-Rwanda partnership controversy serves as a stark reminder of the reputational damage caused by bypassing due diligence in mining. The current list appears to prioritise extraction over long-term solutions. Without focusing on material efficiency and demand reduction, the EU risks deepening resource dependency instead of enabling a just, resilient transition.

END

The European Commission’s Clean Industrial Deal aims to boost Europe’s industrial resilience, enhance circularity, secure critical raw materials, and strengthen international partnerships. However, the initiative, while ambitious, falls short in several key areas. These include an overemphasis on recycling rather than sufficiency measures, a failure to ensure robust human rights due diligence in raw material supply chains, and a lack of clarity regarding the governance of emerging trade mechanisms like Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships (CTIPs).

Circular Economy and Resource Sufficiency

The Commission’s focus on circularity is welcome but overemphasises recycling while neglecting demand reduction, sufficiency, and responsible design. Paragraph 5 mentions economic benefits of remanufacturing, yet lacks concrete measures. Waste prevention, reuse, and repair must be prioritised over recycling, which should be a last resort. Premature recycling increases energy use, resource loss, and social costs.

Critical Raw Materials Act and Governance

The CRMA prioritises securing primary raw materials over secondary markets. The proposed Critical Raw Materials Centre lacks a mandate on demand reduction. Demand aggregation mechanisms favor extractive investments rather than circular alternatives, undermining Green Deal objectives. The CRMA text also fails to address social and environmental consequences outside the EU. Without robust human rights due diligence (FPIC), increased mining risks community conflicts. The CSDDD must be integrated into CRMA for accountability.

Circular Economy Act: Inconsistencies and Challenges

The Circular Economy Act aims to boost secondary raw material trade but lacks clarity on implementation. Ecodesign expansion is necessary but underdeveloped, especially for high-impact products like solar panels. The proposed export restrictions on raw material waste contradict FTAs, requiring transparency. Processing should comply with labor, environmental, and human rights standards.

Trade and Regulatory Oversight

The Clean Industrial Deal’s Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships (CTIPs) risk prioritising corporate interests over public scrutiny. Paragraph 6 outlines strategic raw material agreements but lacks safeguards. CTIPs must integrate strict, binding due diligence requirements. Increased diplomatic engagement and civil society involvement are essential.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

To align with sustainability and equity, the Commission must:

• Prioritise sufficiency strategies over recycling.
• Ensure CRMA focuses on secondary raw materials and enforces due diligence.
• Clarify Circular Economy Act governance, export restrictions, and Ecodesign enforcement.
• Improve CTIP transparency and accountability.

Without these changes, the Clean Industrial Deal risks reinforcing environmental harm and dependency.

20 February — Today, the European Commission’s Critical Raw Materials Board will decide on the selection of the Strategic Projects List under the Critical Raw Materials Regulation (CRMR). This list will determine which mining projects receive high-priority status and fast-tracked permitting to extract so-called strategic minerals. However, this process has been conducted behind closed doors, with no substantial transparency or engagement with civil society organisations, raising serious concerns about the democratic legitimacy of the decision-making process.

Despite repeated claims of upholding democratic principles and transparency, the European Commission has failed to disclose the specific projects under consideration, effectively shutting out public scrutiny and independent expertise. Civil society organisations, local communities, and environmental advocates have been left in the dark, unable to assess or challenge the environmental, social, and human rights implications of these projects.

The situation is exacerbated by the European Commission’s continued disregard for meaningful consultation and consent processes in key regions affected by mining expansion. Communities in Portugal, Serbia, and Sweden – where extractive projects have faced considerable public resistance – have been completely sidelined in the decision-making process. Their concerns about environmental degradation, land rights violations, and social impacts remain unaddressed.

Robin Roels, EU Raw Materials Coalition Coordinator, said:

“The EU must prioritise transparency, democratic accountability and human rights in its raw materials policy. This means disclosing all project proposals and partnership roadmaps, ensuring meaningful consultation with impacted communities, and reassessing partnerships that involve human rights violations.“

Furthermore, the European Commission has failed to take adequate action regarding serious issues linked to its strategic partnerships. The partnership with Rwanda, which raises serious concerns about sovereignty infringement and military-backed mining operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), has not been adequately scrutinised. Reports of human rights violations and the use of military and paramilitary forces to secure mining sites have not led to any reassessment of the EU’s strategic engagement in the region.

With today’s decision, the European Commission is setting a dangerous precedent by prioritising corporate and geopolitical interests over democratic accountability, human rights, and environmental justice. The EU cannot claim to lead on responsible raw material sourcing while undermining the very principles of transparency and consent that it claims to uphold.

Demands for Accoutability

• Immediate disclosure of all projects considered for the planned Strategic Projects List
• Full transparency on the criteria used to determine strategic status
• Full transparency of the content of the MoUs and roadmaps of Strategic Partnerships
• Meaningful consultation and consent processes for impacted communities before any project is approved
• A cancellation of strategic partnerships that involve human rights violations and sovereignty infringements
• Civil society must be meaningfully involved and cannot be tokenised by symbolic meetings like forums, platforms and subgroups with no substance and no knowledge sharing from the Commission

The European Commission must rectify this opaque process and ensure that its raw materials policy aligns with democratic values, rather than reinforcing extractive injustices. Civil society and affected communities demand to be heard, and the time for transparency is now.

[ENDS]

Civil society organizations from Europe and Indonesia ask:

• The EU and the Indonesian government should stop the Indonesia-EU CEPA negotiations, because the agreement poses a threat to the environment and climate, and to the rights of women, Indigenous Peoples, workers, small farmers and fisherfolk.
• Indonesia should retain the policy space to develop its own energy and raw materials value chain, including processing and refining capabilities. The Energy and Raw Materials Chapters in the CEPA would limit Indonesia’s ability to protect its internal market through (temporary) tariffs and quotas and to build up its own manufacturing capacities.
• A just energy transition cannot be achieved by privatizing public goods, in this case energy. Public control through the state should be strengthened and not weakened by the liberalization agenda in the renewable energy sector.
• The EU and Indonesia should not agree to any Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, such as in the EU agreements with Mexico and Chile. Investment protection, including the Investment Court System (ICS), potentially undermines the state’s capacity to respond to public demands to implement a socially just climate policy.
• The Indonesia-EU CEPA should not integrate elements from the Indonesian “Omnibus Law on Job Creation” as this makes human rights and labor protection in Indonesia worse. Both the EU and Indonesia must adhere to internationally agreed ILO-standards and conventions.
• Trade cooperation must ensure that the traded raw materials have been produced under the highest environmental and due diligence standards. Social and environmental impact assessments need to be mandatory for every mining or energy generation project. The rights of communities affected by mining for critical raw materials must be strengthened and those rights must be taken into account from the outset in the planning and implementation of any projects. Indigenous communities’ free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) must be ensured and their decisions respected.
• The EU should reduce its own materials footprint to stay within planetary boundaries and to reduce dependence on resources from other countries such as Indonesia. The EU should commit to reducing critical raw materials consumption by setting targets to reduce consumption through sufficiency measures, material efficiency, responsible design, and substitution technologies​.

EU-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)

Indonesia and the European Union have been negotiating the EU-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) trade agreement since 2016. There are still contentious issues remaining in the negotiations and one of the key issues is on raw materials, under the Energy and Raw Materials Chapter. This chapter specifically regulates the opening of market access and investment in the energy and raw materials sectors to ensure that there are no barriers to EU trade and investment.

However, the liberalization of investment and trade in energy and raw materials in the Indonesia-EU CEPA would have a negative impact on the national interests of Indonesia, the environment, and the Indonesian people at large. For this reason, while we acknowledge the importance of a deepened relationship between the EU and Indonesia based on solidarity and trade cooperation, European and Indonesian civil society groups want to express their concerns regarding CEPA’s implications, in particular on human rights and the environment as well as Indonesia’s capacity to add value to its raw materials. 

Irresponsible mining practices and its social and ecological consequences

Increasing demand for critical mineral raw materials for the green energy transition has triggered over-exploitation and extraction of natural resources, as is the case in Indonesia. 

Some estimates indicate Indonesia supplies over one-fourth of the world’s mineral supply. Indonesia is the world’s biggest nickel producer. It also produces significant quantities of coal, copper, cobalt, tin, gold and bauxite. In the so-called ‘nickel provinces’ of Sulawesi and North Maluku, mining’s damage manifests itself in different forms. Civil society organisations have been tracking sea and river pollution contaminating once pristine waters, reducing fish stocks, causing skin infections in children, and threatening the livelihoods of local people and indigenous communities. Nickel mining in Raja Ampat threatens the most biodiverse coral reef system on the planet, and could further exacerbate the armed conflict in West Papua which is currently displacing almost 80,000 civilians. Mining is also driving deforestation and forcibly displacing local peoples. Women are forced to “adapt” to the situation by taking roles as mining laborers with poor working conditions, taking up informal works such as food vendors, or sex workers. The extraction of critical raw materials also happens at the costs of workers and unions.

The social and environmental impacts of mineral extraction for the green energy transition are not effectively addressed in the Energy and Raw Materials Chapter of the Indonesia-EU CEPA, as there are no legal implications for parties that fail to mitigate these impacts. The provisions under the trade and sustainable development chapter are still questionable in their effectiveness, given that there is no binding enforcement mechanism for related parties, especially corporations. This risks eroding Indonesia’s sovereignty in governing its natural resources and domestic value addition and supports a new period of extractivism.  

Lack of value addition and undermining of Indonesia’s industrial development

The Energy and Raw Materials Chapter specifically regulates for the opening of market access and investment in the energy and raw materials sectors, and serves to ensure that there are no barriers to EU trade and investment in these sectors. This chapter seeks to ensure that Indonesia opens market access and eliminates ‘discriminatory’ treatment in the energy and raw materials sectors. This includes provisions prohibiting export restrictions, including the elimination in principle of all export duties or any measure having equivalent effect. However, this provision conflicts with Indonesia’s policy of limiting raw mineral exports to fulfill domestic processing. 

The EU’s pressure on Indonesia to remove restrictions on raw mineral exports calls into question the EU’s commitment to support domestic value-added production in its partner countries. To make matters worse, the provision on performance requirements also prohibits the application of local content and much-needed technology transfer requirements. This prohibition will make it even more difficult for Indonesia to strengthen its downstream economic agenda around domestic value-added production. In fact, the prioritization of industrial policy within the EU, if conducted in a “business as usual” manner, will only deepen development inequality in developing countries like Indonesia. In this case, the EU’s desire to guarantee the supply of essential minerals for its industrial development will only perpetuate extractive business practices as usual. 

The Energy and Raw Materials Chapter also encourages privatization, by prohibiting government intervention in the pricing of energy goods.  These  provisions will only benefit foreign private actors acting in Indonesia as independent power producers and will lead to the Indonesian government having no option but to purchase electricity at the company’s asking price. In the end, this mechanism will increase the burden on state finances and undermine people’s access to affordable electricity, as well as hindering the realization of an equitable energy transition.

Corporate protections for critical minerals supply in Indonesia

The EU expansion of resource extraction and the privatization of the public energy sector in Indonesia will only strengthen the protection of multinational corporations. This is evidenced by the Investment Chapter of the Indonesia-EU CEPA, which contains the Investment Court System (ICS). The EU proposal for ICS is simply a rebranding of the pre-existing ISDS mechanism that gives special rights to multinational corporations to sue the state. Given the global trend of competition to secure critical mineral supplies and the nationalization agenda of resources under Indonesia’s mining law, this will open up more potential lawsuits for Indonesia given Indonesia’s past experience in dealing with ISDS claims. The mining sector is one of the most litigious industries when it comes to ISDS. Therefore, we see that incorporating such elements into the Indonesia-EU CEPA will have an impact on the protection of the rights of the Indonesian people over corporations. The EU has recently decided to exit the Energy Charter Treaty after several ISDS cases, yet is still promoting provisions on ICS in its trade negotiations. This contradiction shows the EU’s hypocritical approach when it comes to the ISDS system. 

Consequences for the EU

Along with the potential negative consequences for Indonesia, the EU’s policy of pushing for market liberalization has in fact harmed the EU’s own access to critical materials. While the EU has been fighting Indonesia over trade rules, China has invested tens of billions in nickel mining and refining in Indonesia. As a result, Chinese producers have secured a huge supply of nickel for its energy transition. As it stands, 80-82 percent of Indonesian battery-grade nickel output is expected to be produced by majority Chinese producers this year.

What the EU should therefore do is move towards a truly equal partnership with Indonesia, that does not force Indonesia to liberalize its raw materials export or give up its sovereignty to set prices, but instead shows the EU’s willingness to support Indonesian value addition and sustainable economic development. The EU can form an alternative to Chinese-owned environmentally destructive and dangerous nickel processing in Indonesia by investing in and supporting cleaner and more responsible processing capabilities and by paying a fair price for the resources. This would set the standard for fair, equal and sustainable trading practices.

Our demands

Civil society organizations from Europe and Indonesia ask:

• The EU and the Indonesian government should stop the Indonesia-EU CEPA negotiations, because the agreement poses a threat to the environment and climate, and to the rights of women, Indigenous Peoples, workers, small farmers and fisherfolk.
• Indonesia should retain the policy space to develop its own energy and raw materials value chain, including processing and refining capabilities. The Energy and Raw Materials Chapters in the CEPA would limit Indonesia’s ability to protect its internal market through (temporary) tariffs and quotas and to build up its own manufacturing capacities.
• A just energy transition cannot be achieved by privatizing public goods, in this case energy. Public control through the state should be strengthened and not weakened by the liberalization agenda in the renewable energy sector.
• The EU and Indonesia should not agree to any Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, such as in the EU agreements with Mexico and Chile. Investment protection, including the Investment Court System (ICS), potentially undermines the state’s capacity to respond to public demands to implement a socially just climate policy.
• The Indonesia-EU CEPA should not integrate elements from the Indonesian “Omnibus Law on Job Creation” as this makes human rights and labor protection in Indonesia worse. Both the EU and Indonesia must adhere to internationally agreed ILO-standards and conventions.
• Trade cooperation must ensure that the traded raw materials have been produced under the highest environmental and due diligence standards. Social and environmental impact assessments need to be mandatory for every mining or energy generation project. The rights of communities affected by mining for critical raw materials must be strengthened and those rights must be taken into account from the outset in the planning and implementation of any projects. Indigenous communities’ free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) must be ensured and their decisions respected.
• The EU should reduce its own materials footprint to stay within planetary boundaries and to reduce dependence on resources from other countries such as Indonesia. The EU should commit to reducing critical raw materials consumption by setting targets to reduce consumption through sufficiency measures, material efficiency, responsible design, and substitution technologies​.

Signatories

Global and regional organisations

1. Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe)
2. Climate Action Network Southeast Asia (CANSEA)
3. EU Raw Materials Coalition
4. European Coordination Via Campesina
5. European Trade Justice Coalition
6. Fern
7. Friends of the Earth Europe
8. GRAIN
9. Plataforma América Latina y el Caribe mejor sin TLC
10. Publish What You Pay
11. Regions Refocus
12. SIRGE Coalition
13. Transnational Institute

National organisations

14. Asamblea Argentina mejor sin TLC, Argentina
15. ATTAC Argentina, Argentina
16. Anders Handeln, Austria
17. Attac Austria, Austria
18. National Garment Workers Federation, Bangladesh
19. 11.11.11, Belgium
20. CNCD 11.11.11, Belgium
21. Global Aktion, Denmark
22. Miljøbevægelsen NOAH- Friends of the Earth Denmark, Denmark
23. ActionAid France, France
24. Aitec, France
25. Alofa Tuvalu, France
26. Alternatiba, France
27. Amis de la Terre / Friends of the Earth, France
28. ANV-COP21, France
29. Attac France, France
30. CADTM France, France
31. Canopée, France
32. CCFD-Terre Solidaire, France
33. CGT (Confédération Générale du Travail), France
34. Collectif national Stop CETA/Mercosur, France
35. Confédération paysanne, France
36. CRID, France
37. Extinction Rebellion France, France
38. Fédération Artisans du Monde, France
39. Fondation Copernic, France
40. France Nature Environnement, France
41. FSU (Fédération Syndicale Unitaire), France
42. Générations Futures, France
43. Notre Affaire à Tous, France
44. Reclaim Finance, France
45. Union Syndicale Solidaires, France
46. Veblen Institute for Economic Reforms, France
47. Nature & Progrès Fédération, France & Belgium
48. Attac Germany, Germany
49. Berliner Wassertisch, Germany
50. Brot für die Welt, Germany
51. FIAN Deutschland, Germany
52. German NGO Forum on Environment & Development, Germany
53. Human Rights Monitor, Germany
54. Misereor, Germany
55. NaturFreunde Deutschlands, Germany
56. Netzwerk gerechter Welthandel, Germany
57. PowerShift e.V., Germany
58. Rettet den Regenwald, Germany
59. Slow Food Deutschland, Germany
60. Stiftung Asienhaus, Germany
61. Umweltinstitut München e.V., Germany
62. Urgewald, Germany
63. Watch Indonesia! Für Menschenrechte, Demokratie und Umwelt in Indonesien und Osttimor e.V., Germany
64. WEED – World Economy, Ecology, & Development, Germany
65. Aceh Wetland Foundation, Indonesia
66. AEER (Aksi Ekologi & Emansipasi Rakyat), Indonesia
67. BAKUMSU, Indonesia
68. Bina Desa, Indonesia
69. Borneo Institute, Indonesia
70. CEMWU KSPSI, Indonesia
71. Farkes Reformaasi, Indonesia
72. FIAN Indonesia, Indonesia
73. Forum penjaga hutan dan sungai harimau pining, Indonesia
74. FSPI (Federasi Serikat Pekerja Indonesia), Indonesia
75. Indonesia AIDS Coalition, Indonesia
76. Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), Indonesia
77. Indonesia Green Party (Partai Hijau Indonesia), Indonesia
78. JAMTANI (Indonesian Peasant Community Organization), Indonesia
79. Jaringan Advokasi Tambang Sulawesi Tengah ( JATAM SULTENG, Indonesia
80. Jaringan Kerja Lembaga Pelayanan Kristen di Indonesia (JKLPK), Indonesia
81. Koalisi perempuan jaga lingkungan, Indonesia
82. Kolektif Semai, Indonesia
83. Lembaga Pengkajian Hukum Internasional, Indonesia
84. MATEPE Foundation, Indonesia
85. Pemerhati Lingkungan hidup Urai Uni, Indonesia
86. Pengurus Wilayah Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN) Tano Batak, Indonesia
87. Persatuan Pegawai PT PLN Indonesia Power, Indonesia
88. Persaudaraan Pekerja Muslim Indonesia ’98, Indonesia
89. Petrasa Foundation, Indonesia
90. Puanifesto, Indonesia
91. Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia, Indonesia
92. Sahita Institute, Indonesia
93. Satya Bumi, Indonesia
94. Save Our Borneo, Indonesia
95. SERBUK Indonesia, Indonesia
96. Serikat Petani Indonesia, Indonesia
97. Solidaritas Perempuan, Indonesia
98. Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI), Indonesia
99. WALHI Bengkulu, Indonesia
100. WALHI NTT, Indonesia
101. WALHI Papua, Indonesia
102. WALHI Sumatera Utara, Indonesia
103. Yayasan Ambeua Helewo Ruru, Indonesia
104. Yayasan Apel Green Aceh, Indonesia
105. Yayasan Bina Insani Indonesia Kendari / Foundation For Human Development, Indonesia
106. Yayasan Motivator Pembangunan Masyarakat (MPM), Indonesia
107. Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat, Indonesia
108. YIHUI (Yayasan Insan Hutan Indonesia), Indonesia
109. Observatorio Fairwatch, Italy
110. Mouvement Ecologique asbl / FoE Luxembourg, Luxembourg
111. Both ENDS, Netherlands
112. FNV, Netherlands
113. Handel Anders! coalitie, Netherlands
114. Platform Aarde Boer Consument, Netherlands
115. SOMO, Netherlands
116. Working group Food Justice, Netherlands
117. Trade Justice Pilipinas, Philippines
118. TROCA – Plataforma por um Comércio Internacional Justo, Portugal
119. Earth Thrive, Serbia
120. Observatori del Deute en la Globalització, Spain
121. Ongd AFRICANDO, Spain
122. SETEM Catalunya, Spain
123. Southern and Eastern Africa Trade Information and Negotiation Institute (SEATINI), Uganda

The launch of the report of the UN Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals marks an important and urgently needed step towards more just and equitable mineral value chains that respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples, workers, and local affected communities. 

Member states should endorse and commit to supporting the panel’s seven Guiding Principles and five Actionable Recommendations. Implementation of the recommendations should deliver mandatory instruments rather than voluntary frameworks, and aim to remove the structural barriers to global justice and equity. 

The UN and other organizations implementing the recommendations should ensure that Indigenous Peoples, other rights holders, civil society actors, local communities, women, youth, and labor unions are a meaningful part of all decision-making processes in the roll-out of the Panel’s recommendations. Crucially and as the Panel stated, this must include better protection of civic space and environmental and anti-corruption defenders. 

To ensure accountability, we call upon the UN Secretary-General to report back on progress made on the implementation of the Panel’s guidance and the execution of its recommendations and to invite all stakeholders to share their assessment of progress made in one year’s time, at COP30. 

Signatories:

Business and Human Rights Resource Centre

Climate Action Network

Climate Rights International

Earthworks

European Environmental Bureau

EU Raw Materials Coalition

Global Witness

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung e.V.

Human Rights Watch

NRGI

Publish What You Pay

SIRGE

SOMO

On 13 November, the EU swiftly reached a political agreement on the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). Today, Members of the European Parliament gave the text the green light. The EU Raw Materials Coalition, representing more than 50 Civil Society Organisations from across Europe, highlights some of the outcomes in the final CRMA text.

Reducing raw material consumption and circularity: a missed opportunity, but potential to still act 

To achieve secure supply chains as outlined in the CRMA, scrutinizing demand projections and implementing policies to reduce wasteful consumption are vital. While lacking specific reduction targets, the final text will compel the Commission to regularly assess the EU’s progress in achieving specific raw material goals to manage the expected increase in consumption. However, the tackling of demand projections rely majorly on technological development and resource efficiency while failing to account sufficiency measures. Other welcomed improvements include the increasing of the recycling target to 25%, with, along with other circularity measures, may have the potential to contribute to reducing the overall raw materials consumption.

‘’The EU and Member States must prioritize realistic strategies to reduce raw material demand, thus lessening criticality and mitigating environmental and social risks. The Raw Materials Coalition advocates for specific targets, and though the CRMA’s current language on demand moderation is a starting point, further development by implementing institutions is necessary. We anticipate collaborative efforts in the coming years.” Robin Roels, Spokesperson for the Raw Materials Coalition, EEB.

Meaningful Participation? Civil Society, Indigenous Peoples, and affected communities in the Green and Digital Transitions

We welcome the added emphasis on affected community involvement in the recitals, as well as the inclusion of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and observer status for civil society and affected communities on the Critical Raw Materials Board. However, the explicit and binding recognition of the Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as proposed by the European Parliament and demanded by Indigenous Peoples organisations was not included in the final text. With more than half of the raw materials deemed as strategic being located on or near Indigenous Peoples’ territories, Indigenous Peoples’ rights need to be put front and center.

“As we make the vital transition to clean energy, we cannot afford to duplicate the mistakes of the past and the decimation of our ancestral lands and territories. It is imperative that Indigenous communities around the globe participate meaningfully in decision-making and are able to exercise our right to give or withhold consent to these mining projects that impact our land, livelihoods, and cultures” said Galina Angarova (Buryat), Executive Director of Cultural Survival and Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the SIRGE Coalition. 

Overreliance on certifications will outsource environmental and human rights protections

Additional alarming aspects involve the significant reliance of the CRMA on certification schemes to “attest compliance” for Strategic Projects outside the EU. As evidence shows, these schemes are not suited to prove nor ensure compliance with human rights and environmental standards. 

“The Commission essentially outsources human rights and environmental protection responsibilities to private certification entities, often influenced by the very mining companies they are meant to oversee. While the adoption of basic fitness criteria, such as multi-stakeholder governance, on-site audits, and anti-bribery and anti-corruption mechanisms, is a positive step, they will fall short of ensuring robust protection for the environment and human rights.” Johanna Sydow, Head of International Environmental Policy, Heinrich Böll Stiftung.

Environmental protection is still at risk within the CRMA

Despite an extension of the permit-granting process by three months, apprehensions linger regarding the language of ‘overriding public interest,’ potentially enabling mining activities in protected areas. EU legislators overestimate the efficacy of Europe’s mining regulations, as emerging research indicates significant challenges in extractive operations even within member states with strong governance metrics, let alone biodiversity impacts on third countries. 

‘’We see a great danger that the growing demand for metals will drive the extraction of raw materials in nature conservation areas. Already, 4 out of 5 mining projects worldwide are in or close to protected areas, with a range of negative impacts. Ecosystems are the source of life for our future and must not fall victim to hasty and non-transparent processes.” Tobias Kind-Rieper, Global Head of Mining and Metals, WWF Germany.

International Dimension: Strategic Partnerships risk exacerbating human rights impacts

The EU aims to boost sourcing from third countries, yet existing trade and financial tools fall short in bolstering environmental and human rights safeguards. Investments through the Global Gateway, export credits for strategic projects in global south producing countries, Free Trade Agreements and strategic partnerships geared toward securing supplies from third countries risk perpetuating the familiar negative impacts associated with the mining sector.“The impacts from mining operations such as corruption, lack of transparency, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and human rights abuses, which particularly affect women disproportionately are driven by a lack of transparency and corporate accountability. The EU’s trade policy must improve significantly to ensure these partnerships benefit local development, respect and uphold environmental sustainability and human rights. Perrine Fournier, Trade and Forests campaigner, Fern.

On Monday the 13th of November the co-legislators reached a political agreement on the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). The CRMA proposal was published in March 2023 and yet the final text is being agreed upon at the time of this publication. The EU Raw Materials Coalition, representing more than 40 Civil Society Organisations from across Europe, highlights some main concerns with regard to the agreement.

Europe has to be a global leader in circularity and demand reduction. Increasing the recycling target to 25% is a step in the right direction, with the potential to contribute to reducing the overall Raw Materials consumption and boosting circularity. While the CRMA includes language calling for work towards reducing raw material demand, it fails to incorporate a concrete target for raw material consumption reduction.

It is very concerning that the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is not explicitly mentioned in the official communication on the CRMA by the European Council. More than half of Critical Raw Materials are located on or near Indigenous Peoples’ territories. The CRMA is an opportunity to avoid repeating past mistakes and lead the transition in the right direction. The CRMA must ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights are guaranteed and FPIC is included in the text.

The prominent role the regulation gives to certification schemes as a tool to attest compliance with sustainability criteria for strategic projects is alarming. As evidence shows, they are not suited to prove compliance with human rights and environmental standards. Nonetheless, the coalition welcomes the minimum fitness criteria for the schemes which have been adopted, such as multistakeholder governance, audits on site and anti-bribery and anti-corruption mechanisms. While the criteria could have been significantly stronger, it is a step in the right direction.

As the presidency navigates the technical negotiations, it’s imperative to underscore the necessity of embracing high ambitions regarding environmental standards on all levels. This includes maintaining the EU’s resolute stance on keeping mining activities out of the deep sea. The fragile ecosystems in the deep sea are unique and vulnerable, warranting steadfast protection from any form of resource extraction.

ENDS

26 September 2023 marks the official launch of the CSO Coalition on Raw Materials, a vital convergence of over 40 civil society organisations (CSOs) from the EU and beyond. This coalition responds to the escalating demand for metals pivotal in ushering green and digital transitions globally.