LONDON/MELBOURNE, Oct 9 (Reuters) – Rio Tinto (RIO.AX), opens new tab, (RIO.L), opens new tab has agreed to buy U.S. based Arcadium Lithium (ALTM.N), opens new tab for $6.7 billion, it said on Wednesday, a deal that will catapult it to become the world’s third largest miner of the metal used in electric vehicle batteries.

Already the world’s largest producer of iron ore, Rio is transforming itself into a processor of high end, low carbon raw materials essential for the energy transition. The market is currently oversupplied with lithium, but CEO Jakob Stausholm said Rio is confident that long-term demand will be strong.

Rio said it would pay $5.85 per share in cash for Arcadium, an almost 90% premium to its closing price of $3.08 per share on Oct. 4, the day Reuters exclusively reported a potential deal.

Rio’s London-listed shares were down 0.4% by 1054 GMT. Shares in U.S.-listed Arcadium jumped around 40% on Monday, after the companies confirmed negotiations.

Rio would gain access to lithium mines, processing facilities and deposits in Argentina, Australia, Canada and the United States to fuel decades of growth, as well as customers that include Tesla (TSLA.O), opens new tab, BMW (BMWG.DE), opens new tab and General Motors (GM.N)

Lithium prices have floundered due to Chinese oversupply and a slowdown in electric vehicle sales, resulting in miners of the metal emerging as attractive takeover targets.

Rio’s Stausholm told investors that by the end of the decade the company expects a shortfall in supply, with a more than 10% compound annual growth rate in demand through to 2040, boosted by electric vehicles and energy storage.

The current weak market was an opportunity to pick up top quality assets at the right price, Stausholm told Reuters.

“We really want battery-grade lithium, i.e. the processing as well. And then, of course, we like to be an operator, and if you take those criteria, you very quickly come to Arcadium,” he said.

“The way you should think about it is kind of a reverse takeover. This is not a case about cutting costs. This is a case about building faster and better,” he added.

The deal won’t make a material difference to Rio’s current capex plans of up to $10 billion in 2025 and 2026, Stausholm said.

For the whole article go to Reuters.

Jose Fernandez, under secretary for economic growth, energy and the environment at the U.S. Department of State, told a briefing late on Monday that China was producing much more lithium “than the world needs today, by far”.

“That is an intentional response by the People’s Republic of China to what we are trying to do” with the Inflation Reduction Act – the largest climate and energy investment package in U.S. history valued at over $400 billion, Fernandez said, adding:

“They engage in predatory pricing… (they) lower the price until competition disappears. That is what is happening.”

China accounts for about two-thirds of the world’s lithium chemical output, which is mainly used in battery technologies including for electric cars. Prices of lithium have fallen more than 80% in the past year largely due to overproduction from China and a drop in demand for electric vehicles.

However, the price collapse is also affecting China as it has forced Chinese companies like battery giant CATL (300750.SZ), to suspend production at certain mines.

For the whole article go to Reuters.

What do the pop star, the academic and the environmentalists have in common? Like the tens of thousands of people who’ve rallied across Serbia in recent weeks, they’ve all spoken out against the Anglo Australian mining firm Rio Tinto’s $2.4 billion plan to mine and process lithium in that country’s verdant Jadar Valley, near the town of Loznica. The company has said that the site could eventually produce 58,000 tons of lithium per day—enough to meet 90 percent of European lithium demand and power some one million electric vehicles. The Serbian government has eagerly backed the project. It’s also garnered the enthusiastic support of the European Union and the United States, which on Wednesday signed an agreement with Serbia for strategic cooperation in energy. The EU, especially, hopes it can help diversify a supply chain now heavily concentrated in China and secure the bloc easier access to a mineral that’s central to its electric vehicle–centric green industrial policy goals.

Many Serbians, though—including those who’d live closest to the project—worry it will devastate the region’s agricultural production and poison the drinking water for millions. Critics argue it promises few upsides for either local residents or the majority of Serbians. Demonstrators want the project canceled. It wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened: After mass protests in 2022 shut down cities and railways, Serbia’s government revoked its approval of Rio Tinto’s plan for the Jadar Valley site in advance of federal elections that April, blocking further development. On July 11, 2024, Serbia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the decision was unconstitutional, laying the groundwork for the government to let Rio Tinto move forward.

Alongside a new wave of protests has come a new, more intensive wave of repression. Once news broke that Severina had been stopped at the border—she was eventually allowed to pass—Serbian Interior Secretary Ivica Dačić said that she and other regional celebrities would be removed from “lists” of people whose public stances the government considers problematic. People who’ve participated in protests further report being questioned by police over Instagram posts, and might face criminal charges that could mean they spend years in prison. Rio Tinto is now attempting to have peer-reviewed research on the environmental impact of the Jadar project substantially changed or redacted, insisting—alongside high-ranking members of Serbia’s ruling party—that its authors are spreading “disinformation.”

Bojan Simiśić is the founder of Eko Straža, although his home wasn’t among those searched by police in August. Members of that group are now waiting to see whether the government will build a case against them for calling for a “violent change in the constitutional order,” a felony charge. Such serious charges are a new development since the last round of protests, Simiśić says. “In 2021 there were police at my door. They came just to warn me” not to organize or participate in protests, he said. More often, demonstrators were issued tickets fining them around 50 euros for minor infractions. “Now they’re getting more aggressive,” Simiśić added. “It’s not just about the mine. We have to fight for basic liberties to protest.” In response, Simiśić helped organize a protest that drew tens of thousands of people to the grounds of state-run media outlet RTS on September 1, opposing the mine, the government’s treatment of protesters, and the silence around both from Serbia’s tightly controlled media environment. Serbian officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this story.

At the end of last month, a website run by an “independent citizens’” group calling itself “Kopacemo” (We Will Dig) appeared, claiming to fight “misinformation.” The page features a registry of so-called “ecological terrorists,” including Matković and Simiśić. Profiles of several dozen alleged ecoterrorists feature stylized black and white pictures set against cyberpunk-ish green and black backgrounds. Descriptions list whether they’ve been arrested and take personal pot shots. Matković’s listing starts off by saying he “has a speech impediment and tics” and “can’t pronounce his Rs and Ls properly.” A profile for another anti-mining activist states that he “wears a bandanna over his head in a militant style,” which is “actually to cover the loss of his hair.” Vladimir Štimac, a former basketball player featured on the site, has now filed a criminal complaint against its anonymous creators. Though it’s still unclear who exactly is behind the site, the group did indicate on X that it would give power of attorney to fight Štimac’s charge to Vladimir Đukanović, a lawyer and member of the Serbian National Assembly with Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić’s’s ruling Serbian Progressive Party, or SNS.

The powerful governments backing the Jadar Valley project have been relatively quiet about the protests against lithium development in Serbia; the government’s crackdown on dissent; and ominous, anonymous threats to mining critics. That may be because of just how anxious they are to unlock sources lithium, a critical component in the batteries that power electric vehicles, cell phones, and other technologies. The Eurozone’s largest economy, Germany, is facing persistently high levels of unemployment. Its industrial sector has struggled amid low demand and high interest rates.

For the whole article go to The New Republic.

An official trade partnership to source critical raw materials from Serbia is looming with negotiations at the final stages of legal wrangling, Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told Euronews during a high-level event in Brussels.

The trade deal between the EU and Serbia has been cooking for a while with the signing of a letter of intent last September — to strengthen and expand cooperation on critical raw materials and electric vehicles value chains — a clear signal that the EU executive and Belgrade were keen to join forces, provided that environmental and social acceptance challenges around the prospective mining region were sorted out.

On the sidelines of the EIT Raw Materials Summit held in Brussels this week Šefčovič referred to Serbia’s “unique position” in relation minerals listed in the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), such as high-quality lithium, which he referred to as “one of the best in the world”.

“I hope that in a short period of time we will be able to finalise the text of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU),” Šefčovič told Euronews, adding that current discussions with the Serbian government are focused on extraction, processing, refining and use of lithium.

Original news published on Euronews website. Read the full article

Belgrade revoked licences for Rio’s $2.4 billion Jadar lithium project in Western Serbia in January 2022 after massive environmental protests. If completed, the project could supply 90% of Europe’s current lithium needs and help to make the company a leading lithium producer.

Regarded as a critical material by the European Union and the United States, lithium is largely used in batteries for electric vehicles (EV) and mobile devices.

Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Vucic said he had “a difficult conversation” with representatives of Rio Tinto earlier on Wednesday.

“We are facing the question of whether the company will file a lawsuit against us or not,” Vucic told Serbian reporters. “I asked them not to take measures to protect their interests.”

For the whole article go to Reuters.

What happened?

Serbia has signed a letter of intent with the European Commission on a strategic partnership in the areas of batteries and critical raw materials, including lithium. The letter was signed in New York on September 22nd, when Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic, met Maros Sefcovic, a vice-president of the Commission, but the agreement became public only after an investigation by the Danas newspaper.

Why does it matter?

The agreement suggests that the government has not given up on a plan to allow the mining of lithium at Jadar in western Serbia, despite having cancelled an agreement with the Anglo-Australian company Rio Tinto in January 2022 in the face of mass public protests about potential damage to the local environment. The letter of intent adds to existing circumstantial evidence of the government’s intention to press on. In September the government signed an agreement with the Slovak company Inobat, a partner of Rio Tinto, on construction of a battery factory in Cuprija.

The exploitation of lithium could potentially be highly lucrative for Serbia. The country contains 1.3% of the world’s known reserves of the metal, which is essential for the production of batteries for electric vehicles. The estimated value of Serbia’s lithium of €4bn and its extraction over the course of a decade could potentially provide hundreds of jobs and a steady stream of revenue for the government. The EU could also benefit from the development of the Jadar mine, which would allow a reshoring of a vital resource at a time of growing geopolitical tensions and competition for minerals access.

In pressing ahead, however, the government risks a political backlash. Environmental groups and residents of Jadar have come out in opposition to the letter of intent. They have accused Mr Vucic and the prime minister, Ana Brnabic, of being traitors to Serbia and lackeys of the EU and Rio Tinto. The public debate over the agreement could be damaging for the government ahead of the parliamentary election in December. The government has denied that it has concrete plans to exploit the Jadar mine and insists that the letter amounts to no more than a statement.

What next?

The likelihood is that the mining project will eventually go ahead, given the backing that it has from the government, the EU and Anglo-Australian interests. However, in a replay of the dynamics seen ahead of the April 2022 election, the government is likely to stall the plans, reviving them only once the December election is over.

The analysis and forecasts featured in this piece can be found in EIU’s Country Analysis service. This integrated solution provides unmatched global insights covering the political and economic outlook for nearly 200 countries, enabling organisations to identify prospective opportunities and potential risks.

To Teresa Ribera Spanish minister for the ecological transition and the demographic challenge &

Permanent Representatives of the member States of the Council of Europe

To the President of the European Commission & the College of Commissioners

via email

Dear President Metsola and Members of the ITRE Committee,

Dear Minister Ribera and Permanent Representatives of the member States of the Council of Europe,

Dear President von der Leyen and Commissioners,

The signatories of this letter are grassroots and civil society organizations, movements, recognized Indigenous Peoples in the European Union and beyond, local community groups, academics and experts. We have direct experience in assessing the true and often hidden costs of mining including its impacts on people, the environment, good governance and the rule of law.

Due to the serious shortcomings outlined below, we request the withdrawal of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). We reject the misleading policies at its base including its failure to understand the implications of corruption, the absence of communities’ Right to Say ‘No’ and of rights of nature as well as its legitimisation and support of manipulative “social acceptance” and mining certification schemes that breach fundamental citizens’ rights and research ethics.

Instead we demand environmental and climate policies that reduce raw materials demand, energy use and  faulty land management schemes. Increasing mining by breaching fundamental rights, even for the ‘environment’ or to ‘mitigate climate change’, will only worsen climate and ecological conditions and social conflict.

The Act does not address corruption, which is known to be endemic to mining

Across the world, undue influence of mining led to an erosion of the quality of governance; spreading corruption and accentuating local power asymmetries. Governments wrongly merge the interests of mining corporations with those of the general public. Meanwhile this forfeits real mitigation pathways for climate change and the environment.

The recent news in Portugal, where  several companies, high-ranking politicians, and public entities are being investigated for alleged corruption related to the attribution of two lithium concessions, led to the resignation of the Prime Minister António Costa. Savannah Resources and Lusorecursos, the owners of the two concessions, will no longer participate in the Raw Materials Week 2023 (RMW).^[i] The investigation has brought political uncertainty and instability to the country and illustrates that Europe is not immune to the all too present connection between mining and corruption. This is not an exception – across the EU there exist countless cases of corruption and misconduct related to mining, even if they have rarely been brought to justice or received due public attention.^[ii]

Purporting mining as a ‘climate solution’ and mining companies as ‘climate champions’, the CRMA will waterdown laws, fast track procedures and inject billions of taxpayers euros into speculative and reckless mining. For so-called ‘strategic’ raw materials (copper, lithium, nickel etc.), the CRMA foresees fast permitting by limiting public consultation periods and shortening the time citizens have for a fair trial to defend their rights.

This runs against human and environmental rights such as the right to public participation in decision making on environmental matters and the right to access justice. Other fundamental rights, including the right to housing, are breached in areas where new mines involve forced evictions, while eroding our food sovereignty and the rights of farmers, peasants and other people working in rural areas.

The CRMA will not only extend bad governance across Europe, but exacerbate it globally by allowing the designation of strategic projects outside of the EU, including on Indigenous lands. EU institutions have refused to modify the CRMA^[iii] to include legally binding Free Prior and Informed Consent mechanisms. This is in breach of international conventions on Indigenous Rights. The Sámi people of the Sápmi region in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia are recognized Indigenous Peoples in the European Union, and mining causes irreparable damage to their way of life.^[iv] We need regulations that offer legally binding protection to Indigenous Nations and legalize the Right to Say ‘No’. We do not need tokenistic advisory roles for communities impacted by mining inside and outside the EU’s borders. 

A “Social license” to harm, destroy and violate European fundamental rights and ethics

There is nothing socially acceptable about the scramble for raw materials. Many of us are directly affected by environmental and social non-compliance of the extractive sector. We have never given any company the permission to extract or explore in our communities or to transform our lands into sacrifice zones in the name of perpetual economic growth.

We reject policy proposals that seek to manage resistance through “facilitat[ing] public acceptance” (CRMA) or by industry-coined procedures to gain a social license to operate (SLO). If not backed by Free, Prior and Informed Consent dialogue at community level, we consider “social licensing” and any related influence on public perceptions by public authorities or corporations, a procedural euphemism for social engineering and ‘soft’ counter-insurgency. They only serve to brush off legitimate objections to instances of corruption, or projects that fail to comply with environmental and labor laws. A subgroup on public acceptance that is part of the CRMA’s Critical Raw Materials Board is insufficient. It does not resolve the violation of citizens’ rights impacted by Strategic Projects.

The Commission’s goal of “[c]hanging public opposition to passive tolerance or active support” runs against European ideals of democratic participation.^[v] It will erode the public’s trust in the European project by diminishing efforts made toward a just and sustainable future for all. We refuse a law that promotes passive tolerance to socio-environmental harm, corruption and labor abuse, which existing public funding schemes are already reinforcing. The Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) and Horizon Europe (2021-2027) programmes contain at least 25 projects with a total budget of €181M which include deliverables that seek to organize public acceptance for extractive projects in member states and beyond.^[vi] These misleading publicly funded initiatives refuse scrutiny by the very public they intend to influence. There is a need for an inquiry into the Commission’s research requirement to “impact[ing] public awareness and acceptance and trust in mining operation.”^[vii] The signatories of this letter consider the Commission’s funding and the participation of public authorities’ in such applied research an illicit interference on the opinion of individuals, and a violation of article 11, section 1, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) and article 10, section 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Furthermore, the ethics management and board of at least one Horizon Europe project does not fulfill the ethical standards set out for the Horizon Europe Framework Programme.^[viii] Thus, the signatories ask the Commission for an independent assessment of the 25 projects.

The EU invested millions of taxpayer euros into research on how to generate “social acceptability” for mining operations, some of which proved to be involved in criminal activities. For example, in 2016 three executives from the Cobre Las Cruces copper mine in Spain were sentenced to a year in prison and fined 293,000 euro for environmental crimes after polluting Seville’s aquifer with arsenic.^[ix] Since then the company has been repeatedly fined for damages to water bodies, yet it was awarded a 26,7 million euro subsidy and has benefited from half a dozen Research Projects under the Framework Programmes worth millions of euros.^[x]

Social acceptability efforts violate democratic regulations and due process. They generate misinformation, and obstruct transparency. They hinder the possibility of legal action against non-compliance with environmental, administrative or labor laws. And social acceptability efforts advance corruption.

Europe’s mining regulations are dangerously obsolete

With statements such as mining “in the EU is subject to the highest environmental and social standards worldwide,”^[xi] EU institutions like to assure citizens that its mining legislation is the most advanced in the world. This is false.

Tailing dams illegal in Brazil, Chile, China, Ecuador or Peru are being advanced as ‘best available techniques’ in Spain and Portugal.^[xii] For example, the Touro copper proposal in Spain plans an 81-meter-high dam just 200 meters upstream from the village of Arinteiro. While Brazil and Ecuador prohibit tailing dams less than 10 km upstream from potentially affected communities and China prohibits them at a distance of less than 1 km, EU legislation imposes no restrictions. In Spain, 99% of tailings dams are built following upstream design,^[xiii] the most dangerous construction method – banned in Brazil, Chile, Ecuador or Peru.

Industry-driven negligence combined with policy makers’ misjudgement of mining operations leads to  obsolete regulations and a reluctance to implement ‘Best Available Technologies’ (BAT). This is extremely dangerous. This even more so as new ‘low-cost’ mining projects seek to develop large mines with lower ore grades to mine conventional metal (e.g. copper) as well as minerals such as lithium. They will create waste facilities of unseen dimensions that in return come with significant risks. Mining lower ore grades doubled the last decade, while costs and quantities of mining waste increased exponentially.^[xiv]

Europe has seen too many major mine accidents.^[xv] “Never again,” said Margot Wallström, the EU Commissioner after the Baia Mare tailing dam failure. Yet the sheer scope and pace of new mines, plus the untested nature of the accelerated permitting regime can only lead to accidents. For example, the recently approved extension of the Rio Tinto tailings dam in western Andalucia,  Spain, allows the storage of over 360 million tons of highly toxic sludge. In comparison, the 1998 Aznalcóllar disaster involved the release of ‘only’ 6 million tons. We refuse to accept a law that we know will give rise to more accidents with incalculable consequences in terms of human lives and environmental damage.

We can’t mine our way out of a perpetual growth syndrome

European policymakers have bought into the delusion that more mining will mitigate ecological and climate catastrophe. Europe’s target is to mine in the next 30 years as much copper as has been mined in the past 7,000 years.^[xvi] It is to completely deplete known global reserves for nickel, cobalt, lithium and other minerals (under the premise that reserves will continue to expand indefinitely via deep-sea and space mining). Scientific consensus against deep sea mining has also shown the irreversible damage to ecosystems, potential toxic releases, biodiversity loss, and the unknown consequences on ocean health.^[xvii]

Yet, as ore grades dwindle^[xviii] (for example, average grades in copper mines has gone from 1.8% in 1930 to 0.5% today), newly proposed mines create greater environmental impacts^[xix], larger volumes of waste, larger energy demand and rising emissions, under the constraints of minimum low-cost safety standards. That is the opposite of ‘green.’

To meet Europe’s target, its mineral demand forecasts are enormous: For solar and wind technologies demand for lithium, dysprosium, cobalt, and neodymium are to be up to 600% in 2030 and up to 1500% in 2050 from 2018 levels. Batteries for electric vehicles and renewables will drive 2030 demand for lithium up by 1800% and cobalt by 500%, and drive 2050 demand up by almost 6000% and 1500%, respectively.^[xx] These numbers do not take into account so-called ‘smart technologies,´other individualized electric mobility devices (e.g. scooters, bikes, etc.), energy infrastructure (transformers, HVPLs, etc.) and, in the end, relies on significant data gaps.^[xxi]

According to Simon P. Michaux, of the Finnish Geological Survey (GTK) “a case can be made that not only is current mineral production not high enough to supply the projected quantity demand for metals, but current global reserves are not large enough to meet long term consumption targets.”^[xxii] All this happens alongside new additions of low-carbon energy sources which are being built alongside already existing fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources on the European energy grid. European environmental policy, moreover, is furthering energy market privatization and entrenching the existing trajectory of uncontrollable energy consumption.^[xxiii]European environmental and climate policy is deeply flawed and leading to worsening ecological conditions. We need legal reforms based on energy and material reduction, not a law that feeds into the hands of the mining lobby. 

EU treaties require that all EU decisions are taken as openly and as closely to the citizens as possible. The CRMA was intended “to collect evidence and views from a broad range of stakeholders and citizens.” But given that it was rushed through at great speed by DG GROW, the documents put to public consultation were only available in French, German, and English languages, excluding significant segments of Europe’s population.^[xxiv] This is a violation of our right to access to information and to participate in decision making in environmental matters enshrined by the Aarhus Convention to which the European Union is a signatory. We will take all legal steps to ensure redress because with the CRMA, EU institutions have again put the cart before the horse.^[xxv] We refuse another law that wants short term profit to the detriment of people and the planet. It is for all these legal and ethical violations that we request the withdrawal of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA).

We look forward to reading your reply and remain

Yours sincerely,

Grupo de Geopolítica y Bienes Comunes, Buenos Aires, Argentina

“EcoLur” Informational NGO, Yerevan, Armenia

Armenian Environmental Front

Right Side Human Rights Defender NGO, Yerevan Armenia

Attac Austria, Austria

Degrowth Vienna, Austria

CATAPA vzw, Ghent, Belgium

Center for Civil Society Promotion/ Centar za promociju civilnog društva, Bosnia

Eko BiH network, BiH

Eko Forum Zenica, Bosnia 

Ekološko udruženje “OZRENSKI STUDENAC” Sočkovac

Centar za životnu sredinu/Center for Environment, Bosnia

Udruženje “Centar za mirovno obrazovanje” / Center for Peace Education, Bosnia 

Green Team, Bosnia 

NGG Park Prirode Trstionica i Boriva, Kakanj, Bosnia 

Udruženje građana Fojničani Maglaj, Bosnia 

Foundation Atelier for Community Transformation – ACT/ Fondacija Atelje za društvene promjene – ACT, Bosnia 

NGG “Stop izgradnji MHE na Kasindolskoj rijeci” Bosnia

Observatorio Plurinacional de Salares Andinos, Chile

Fundación Tantí, Chile

Fundación Chile Sin Ecocidio, Chile

Fundación Protege Los Molles, Chile

Tasaarengu Eesti Organisatsioon, Estonia

WeMove Europe, Europe

GEN Europe, Europe

Saimaa ilman kaivoksia ry, Finland

Ei kaivoksia Suomen käsivarteen ry, Finland

Ei kaivosta Pyhä-Luostolle, Finland

Kansalaisten kaivosvaltuuskunta – MiningWatch Finland ry, Finland

Kaivoskriittinen kansanliike, Finland

Sokli erämaana ry, Finland

Sompion Luonnonystävät ry (The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation – local association for Savukoski-Sodankylä areas), Finland

Ylitornion – Pellon Luonto ry (local group of The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation), Finland

Vuohču Sámiid Searvi rs, Finland

Osikonmäen kyläyhdistys ry, Finland

Kolkontaipaleen kyläyhdistys ry, Finland

The Global Extractivisms and Alternatives Initiative (EXALT), Finland

Sámi Bálgosat rs (Association of Saami Reindeer Herding Co-operatives), Finland

Rajat Lapin Kaivoksille ry (Limits to Mines in Lapland Registered Association), Finland

Ass. Risteco – La Ville qui Mange, France

Association of Ethical Shareholders Germany

Hellenic Mining Watch, Greece

Observatorio de Industrias Extractivas (OIEGT), Guatemala

aHang Platform, Hungary

Védegylet Egyesület/Protect the Future Association, Hungary

Clean Air Action Group, Hungary

Ökotárs-Hungarian Environmental Partnership Foundation, Hungary

International University College of Turin, Italy

Justice Peace and Integrity of Creation Commission Union of Superiors General and International Union of Superiors General, Italy
Associação Cultural Amigos da Serra da Estrela – ASE, Central Region, Portugal
Associação Montalegre Com Vida, North Region, Portugal

Centro de Ecologia, Recuperação e Vigilância de Animais Selvagens (CERVAS) / Associação ALDEIA, Central Region, Portugal

Movimento Seixoso-Vieiros: Lítio Não, North Region, Portugal

UDCB – Unidos em Defesa de Covas do Barroso, North Region, Portugal

Espaço A SACHOLA – Covas do Barroso, North Region, Portugal

Rede Minas Não, Portugal

Extinction Rebellion Guimarães, North Region, Portugal

Chaves Comunitária, North Region, Portugal

Grupo de Investigação Territorial (GIT), Portugal

Associação Povo e Natureza do Barroso – PNB, North Region, Portugal

AVE – Associação Vimaranense para a Ecologia, North Region, Portugal

Movimento SOS Serra d’Arga, North Region, Portugal

Movimento Contra Mineração Penalva do Castelo, Mangualde e Satão, Central Region, Portugal

Rede para o Decrescimento em Portugal, Portugal

SOS – Serra da Cabreira, North Region, Portugal

IRIS, Associação Nacional de Ambiente, Portugal

Sciaena – Oceano # Conservação # Sensibilização, Portugal

Movimento Não às Minas – Montalegre, North Region, Portugal

Movimento ContraMineração Beira Serra, Central Region, Portugal

Movimento Amarante diz não à exploração de lítio Seixoso-Vieiros, North Region, Portugal

FAPAS – Associação Portuguesa para a Conservação da Biodiversidade, Portugal

Grupo pela Preservação da Serra da Argemela (GPSA), Centro Region, Portugal

URZE – Associação Florestal da Encosta da Serra da Estrela, Portugal

Bravo Mundo – Citizens Movement for a Safer Future, Central Region, Portugal

Nao as Minas Beiras – Citizens Movement, Central Region, Portugal

MiningWatch Portugal, Portugal

Asociația pentru protejarea Munților Apuseni-Rovina, Vest Region, România

Independent Centre for the Development of Environmental Resources, Vest Region, Romania

Ecou Rovina Bucureșci, București – Ilfov Region, România

Mining Watch Romania, Romania

Roșia Montană Community, Centru Region, România

Cărturești Foundation, Bucharest, România

Street Delivery, Romania

Comunitatea Declic, România

Asociatia turistica sportiva civica si ecologista “Clubul de Cicloturism NAPOCA” (CCN) – România

Asociația HaicuBicla, București, România

Acción Océanos, Spain

Alconchel sin Minas, Extremadura, Spain

Amigos de la Tierra, Spain

Asociación Alarma Terra de Montes, Galicia, Spain

Asociación Cultural Valle el Saltador, Andalucía, Spain

Asociación de Defensa Ambiental Salvemos Cabana, Galicia, Spain

Asociación Tralapena, Galicia, Spain

Campiña Sur sin Megaminas, Extremadura, Spain

Ecologistas en Acción, Spain

Fundação Montescola, Galicia, Spain

No a la mina de Gilico, Murcia, Spain

No a la mina en la Sierra de Yemas, Castilla y León, Spain

Plataforma Bierzo Aire Limpio, Castilla y León, Spain

Plataforma Cívica Alcalaboza Viva, Andalucía, Spain

Plataforma Comarca de Olivenza sin Minas, Extremadura, Spain

Plataforma en Defensa da Ría de Muros e Noia – PLADEMAR, Spain

Plataforma Mina Touro – O Pino Non, Galicia, Spain

Plataforma de afectados por la minería de Teruel, Aragón, Spain

Plataforma de Afectados por Metales Pesados de la Sierra Minera, Murcia, Spain

Plataforma de afectados por las explotaciones mineras de Peña Zafra, Balonga y Quibas, Murcia, Spain

Plataforma No a la Mina de Cañaveral, Extremadura, Spain

Plataforma No a la Mina en el Valle del Corneja, Castilla y León, Spain

Plataforma Oro No, Principado de Asturias, Spain

Plataforma para la defensa del Valle de Lucainena, Andalucía, Spain

Plataforma Rural Sostenible, Castilla y León, Spain

Plataforma Salvemos Esparteros, Andalucía, Spain

Plataforma Salvemos la Montaña de Cáceres, Extremadura, Spain

Plataforma Salvemos las Villuercas, Cáceres, Spain

Plataforma Sí a la Tierra Viva, Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Sierra de Gata Viva, Cáceres, Spain

Sindicato Labrego Galego, Galicia, Spain

SOS Suído-Seixo, Galicia, Spain

Marš sa Drine, Serbia

Udruženje za zaštitu životne sredine (AEP), Serbia

Mlavska vojska, Petrovac na Mlavi, Serbia

Čuvari Homolja, Žagubica, Serbia

Pokret Odbranimo šume Fruške gore, Fruška Gora, Serbia

Udruženje za zaštitu šuma, Novi Sad, Serbia

Ne dam, Ne dau, Majdanpek, Serbia

Borani se pitaju, Bor, Serbia

Extinction rebellion Srbija, Serbia

Kreni-Promeni, Serbia

PRVI PRVI NA SKALI, Kragujevac, Serbia

Earth Thrive Serbia/UK

Polekol, Serbia

Bravo! Novi Sad, Serbia

Kremnica nad zlato, Kremnica beyond gold, Slovakia

Urán Košice STOP, Slovakia

Društvo Sončni grič, Slovenia

Skiftet, Sweden

Kazdagi Association for The Protection of Natural and Cultural Assets, Türkiye

Climate Justice Coalition, Türkiye

Kazma Birak Campaign Coordination Committee, Türkiye

En Ecocide, Türkiye

Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Ukraine

Free Svydovets, Ukraine

The Corner House, United Kingdom

Fuel Poverty Action, United Kingdom

Socal Friends the World Social Forum, USA

Urgent Action Fund for Feminist Activism, USA

Prof. Bram Büscher, Wageningen University, Netherlands

Prof. dr Biljana Stojković, Faculty of Biology, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Belgrade, Serbia

Prof. dr Ljiljana Tomović, Faculty of Biology,, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Belgrade, Serbia

Prof. Dr. Bogdan Šolaja, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia

Prof. Dr. Branimir Grgur, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy University of Belgrade, Serbia

Prof. Dr. Giuseppe Mastruzzo, International University College of Turin, Italy

Prof. Dr. Lidija Djokic, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Prof. Dr. Miomir Kostic, University of Belgrade, Serbia (retired)

Prof. Dr. Ratko Ristić, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Prof. Filipe Calvão, Geneva Graduate Institute, Switzerland

Prof. Giuseppe Mastruzzo, International University College of Torino, Itália

Prof. Maja van der Velden, University of Oslo, Norway

Prof. Markus Kröger, University of Helsinki, Finland

Prof. Maya van der Velden,Universidade de Oslo, Norway

Prof. Ugo Mattei, University of Turin, Italy

Prof. Zoran Radovanović, Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia (retired)

Prof. Christopher Chase-Dunn,  Distinguished Professor of the Graduate Division, University of California-Riverside, USA

Dr. Magdalena Taube, Macromedia University Berlin; co-founder, Berliner Gazette, Germany

Prof. Ana Vitória Alkmim, Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), Lisbon, Portugal

Dr. (Agr. For. Sci.) Helvi Heinonen-Tanski, Finland

Dr. Adrian Lahoud, Royal College of Art, London, United Kingdom

Dr. Al Gedicks, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA

Dr. Alevgul H. Sorman, Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Spain

Dr. Alexander Dunlap, Boston University, USA & University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Alison Laurie Neilson, Interdisciplinary Centre for Social Sciences, NOVA University, Lisbon, Portugal

Dr. Astrid Ulloa, Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Dr. Carlos Tornel, Independent Scholar, México

Dr. Claudio Cattaneo, Masaryk University, Brno

Dr. Diego Andreucci, University of Barcelona, Spain

Dr. Dragana Đorđević, ICT Metallurgy -, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Dr. Dražen B. Zimonjić, Member, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia

Dr. Ecehan Balta, Independent Researcher, Turkey

Dr. Elliot Honeybun-Arnolda, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom

Dr. Eric Bettis, Wayne State University, United States

Dr. Filip Alexandrescu, Research Institute for Quality of Life, Romania

Dr. Filka Sekulova, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain

Dr. Gabriel Girigan, “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, România

Dr. Godofredo Pereira, Royal College of Art, London, United Kingdom

Dr. Gustavo García-López, Center for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr. Hanne Cottyn, Ghent University, Belgium

Dr. Hannu L. Suominen, Marine Microbiologist, Finland

Dr. Hans Eickhoff, Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), Lisbon, Portugal

Dr. Ioana Bunescu, “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, Romania

Dr. Irina Velicu, Center for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr. Jari Natunen, PhD Biochemistry, chair of MiningWatch Finland

Dr. Jean Leon Boucher, Senior Researcher, The James Hutton Institute, Scotland

Dr. Joám Evans, Åbo Akademi University, Finland

Dr. Jonas Van Vossole, Ecology and Society Lab, Center for Social Studies, Coimbra University, Portugal

Dr. Jonathan Kishen Gamu, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Dr. Ksenija Hanacek, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain & University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Louise Guibrunet, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico

Dr. Maarit Laihonen, University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Dr. Marcin Zaród, SWPS University Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Maria Elena Indelicato, Center for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr. Mariana Walter, UAB, Spain

Dr. Marianne Juntunen, PhD Biochemistry,  MSc Tech, Finland

Dr. Mark Levene, Emeritus fellow, University of Southampton, United Kingdom.

Dr. Marta Conde, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

Dr. Mike Hannis, Bath Spa University, United Kingdom

Dr. Nenad M. Kostić, retired professor at Iowa State University &  TAMUC-Commerce, USA

Dr. Paul Hodge, University of Newcastle, Australia

Dr. Paula Sequeiros, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr. Renata Pacheco, University of Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Roberto Cantoni, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Dr. Sheila Holz, Center for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr. Silvia Maeso, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Dr. Stefania Barca, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Dr. Steven H. Emerman, Malach Consulting, USA

Dr. Susanna Myllylä, Associate Professor, University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Dr. Susanne Hofmann, Visiting Fellow, London School of Economics, United Kingdom

Dr. Tarja Richard, Director for Managing Authority, Finland

Dr. Valer Simion Cosma, ”Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, România

Dr. Laura Calvet Mir, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

Dr. Beyza Üstün, Turkey

Dr. Will Lock, University of Sussex, United Kingdom

Dr. Johannes M. Waldmüller, University of Vienna and Climate Change Advisor, Brot für die Welt/Diakonie Austria

Dr. José María Vallet García, Finnish Geospatial Research Institute, National Land Survey of Finland

Alessandro Morosin, Assistant Professor of Sociology & Criminology, University of La Verne California, USA

Dr Svjetlana Nedimović, editor, Riječ i djelo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Laura Calvet-Mir, PhD, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

Irina Castro, Centre for Social Studies, Portugal

Josephine Becker, Researcher, Universidade de Vigo, Spain

V’cenza Cirefice, PhD researcher, Geography Department, University of Galway, Ireland

Krystian Woznicki, author, editor, co-founder, Berliner Gazette, Germany

Joana Sousa, PhD, researcher, Centre for Social Studies, Univ Coimbra, Portugal 

Joao Prates Ruivo, Associate Lecturer in Environmental Architecture, Royal College of Art, UK

Isabel Ferreira, PhD, researcher, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal 

Lúcia Fernandes, PhD, researcher, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, ««Portugal 

Antonio del Giudice, Associate Lecturer, School of Architecture, Royal College of Art, UK

Pablo Dominguez, Senior Researcher at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France.

PD Dr. Heike Hübener, University Gießen, Germany

Professor John Barry, Queen’s University Belfast

Professor Vesa Puuronen, University of Oulu, Finland

André Pereira, PhD candidate, University of Lisbon, Portugal

Caroline Seagle, PhD Candidate, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Ciarán Ó Briain, Independent Scholar / PhD Candidate, Ireland

Cristiano Pereira, PhD Candidate, ISCTE-IUL, Portugal

Elena Gálvez, PhD Candidate, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Ernesto Deus, PhD.,Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Federico Demaria, Associate Professor in ecological economics, University of Barcelona, Spain

Guilherme Castelbranco de Guimarães Serôdio, ISCTE-IUL, Portugal

Helena Sabino Antunes, PhD Candidate, Universidade de Salamanca, Spain

Hestia Delibas, PhD candidate, Center for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal

İlksen Dincer Bas, End Ecocide Türkiye, Türkiye

Ioana Savin, postdoc researcher, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu

Jesse Segura, PhD candidate, University Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain

Joana Sá Couto, PhD Candidate, University of Lisbon, Portugal.

Kaya Schwemmlein, PhD candidate, University of Lisbon, Portugal

Line Algoed, PhD Researcher, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

M.Sc. Geotechnical Engineer, Peter W. Brandt, Finland

Maria João Horta Parreira, CICS.NOVA, FCSH-NOVA, Portugal

Mariana Riquito, PhD Candidate in Social Studies, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

Michiel Köhne, Wageningen University, Netherlands

Mikuláš Černík, PhD candidate, Department of Environmental Studies, Masaryk University, Cz Rep

MSc Chemical Engineering, Leif Ramm-Schmidt, Finland

Niina Helistö, Surveyor, former mine supervisor, founder of Rajat Lapin kaivoksille ry, Finland

Pedro Fidalgo, PhD Candidate, Centre for Social Studies University of Coimbra, Portugal

Ramón Balcázar Morales, PhD Candidate in Rural Development, UAM Mexico

Rodolfo Pezzi, PhD candidate, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Ruta Śpiewak, Assistant Professor, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Tiago Patatas, PhD Candidate in Architecture Research, Royal College of Art, United Kingdo

Vera Ferreira, PhD Candidate, University of Lisbon, Portugal

Constantina Theodorou, architect- PhD candidate NTUA, Greece

Giorgio Pirina, researcher, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy

Giada Coleandro, PhD candidate, University of Bologna

Luca Onesti, PHD candidate, University of Lisbon, Portugal 

Rubén Vezzoni, Doctoral Reseacher, University of Helsinki, Finland

Christina Pinell, M.Sc. (Tech), Finnish Geospatial Research Institute, National Land Survey of Finland.

ENDNOTES

^[i] Information supplied by DG GROW 09-11-2023. Already in a 2020 complaint statement on the Horizon 2020 project MIREU, the signatory “Não às Minas Montalegre” from Portugal had informed Commission’s DG GROW on the questionable business practices of Lusorecursos. With the recent corruption scandal in Portugal, the company was, including their facilitators Iberian Sustainable Mining Cluster (ISMC) and Cluster Portugal Mineral Resources (ACPMR), excluded from the Horizon Europe funding application “Li4Life”. Despite the Portuguese Public Prosecutors search warrant equally targeting the directors of the mining authority DGEG  on the grounds of “illegitimate benefits” for the involved companies, the Commission upholds its participation in the RMW.

^[ii] Examples include the 2018 Borba tragedy in Portugal, with 5 casualties, the arrest of public officials in connection to the Orivesi mine owned by Dragon Mining in Finland, or the ongoing prosecution of 16 mining officials in connection with the reopening of the Aznalcóllar mine in Spain. In Spain alone, the Iberian Mining Observatory (www.minob.org) has documented more than 30 cases of corruption and administrative misconduct connected to mines while the European Commission itself is facing an ongoing investigation by the European Ombudsman on the use of Horizon funds in the illegal operation of the San Finx mine.

^[iii] EEB https://eeb.org/critical-raw-materials-regulation-vote/

^[iv] Contrary to Norway, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Denmark, no host member state has so far ratified the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (ILO 169). As part of the letter’s signatories the Sámi stress: the loss of lands impact reindeer herding, local economy, Sámi culture, health, and well-being. Sámi traditions and culture will vanish if reindeer herding disappears. The European project steered by the Commission must recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous Sámi people to their lands that they have traditionally owned, occupied, and used, including those to which they have had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.

^[v] European Commission’s 3rd EU Raw Materials Scoreboard

^[vi] AGEMERA, BIORECOVER, CROCODILE, ENICON, EXCEED, GREENPEG, illuMINEation, INFACT, ION4RAW, ISAAC, MADITRACE, MIREU, NEMO, NEXT, PACIFIC, RAWMINA, RIA CICERO, S34I, SecREEts, SEMACRET, SOLCRIMET, SUMEX, TARANTULA, VAMOS, VECTOR; references at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BKz2hMNSg1gwApu5D27u0Inv0mbE-yhWGMPphG3eyVc/edit?usp=sharing

^[vii] Of the 25 research consortia in question, 15 have, backed by the Commission’s managing agencies ERC-EA, EASME, and HaDEA, refused to make their Grant Agreements, and parts on how they intend to shape the public’s perception, available to interested civil society actors, invoking “commercial secrets” and “intellectual property” that allegedly outweigh the public’s interest (AGEMERA, BIORECOVER, EXCEED, GREENPEG, illuMINEation, MIREU, NEMO, NEXT, RAWMINA, SecREEts SEMACRET, SOLCRIMET, SUMEX, TARANTULA,VECTOR). // EASME Head of Raw Materials Sector Marcin Sadowski at the “Social Acceptance in the Raw Material Sector” workshop 2018: “projects funded under Horizon 2020 are expected to address […] impacting public awareness and acceptance and trust in mining operation.” // HaDEA project advisor Véronique Woulé Ebongué at Raw Materials Week 2019: “actions responding to 2018-2020 calls are requested to […] improve public awareness, acceptance and trust’.”

^[viii] For the Horizon Europe project VECTOR allegations including negligence of, are: local ethics evaluation, research, and good participatory practice with feedback given in the project’s host countries (Germany, Serbia, Ireland), as recommended by the mitigation requirements of the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings (see §1, §2, §3, §4, §8, §9, §10). At least in Serbia, §21 was violated through a VECTOR member not disclosing the intent and scope of contacts made with local communities. The use of machine learning to identify favorable areas for extractive activities in Europe and the non-involvement of human rights experts and independent advisors may be in violation of the Guidance note on Potential misuse of research, as VECTOR’s activities involve minority and vulnerable groups and it develops social and behavioral profiling technologies that could be misused to stigmatize, discriminate against, harass or intimidate people. Last but not least, all 4 members of the VECTOR’s ethics management and advisory board are not free from conflict of interest in informing an interdisciplinary raw materials project on public acceptance and mining conflicts: At least two advisors have or still serve as corporate defenders in various high-profile fraud, bribery and corruption cases, e.g. for Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (Kazakhstan, Africa), Rio Tinto (Simandou mine, Guinea), Alstom (Tunisia), and Atalaya Mining Plc (Spain). On one advisor’s own report and, apart from a work history with the VECTOR partner and mining consultancy Satarla Ltd, he was, in the early 2000s, “buying dynamite from a corner shop [in Potosi, Bolivia] to hand it as a present to artisanal silver miners”. 3rd advisor “offers to assist companies earn and retain […] approval from the communities” through his own advisory firm, having published on “Earning the Social License” for the Dingleton resettlement project (co-authorship with a Anglo American employee), a socio-environmental conflict around the South African Sishen opencast mine, owned by Kumba Iron Ore. The 4th member, long-term servant of the French military forces, including during the French counter-insurgency operations Serval and Barkhane in Mali, publishes on conflict mitigation and resolution operations, including how the armed conflict outcomes and use of technology in modern warfare can “be employed in other missions … such as pacification operations”, e.g. French Yellow Vests Protests. Sources available, please contact mineria@ecologistasenaccion.org.

^[ix] https://euobserver.com/green-economy/157619

^[x] These programs include  INFACT, NEMO, RAWMINA, INTMET and BioMOre, many of which carry a “social license” component.

^[xi] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0468_EN.html

^[xii] For example, the Touro copper proposal in Spain plans an 81-meter-high dam just 200 meters upstream from the village of Arinteiro. While Brazil and Ecuador prohibit tailing dams less than 10 km upstream from potentially affected communities and China prohibits them at a distance of less than 1 km, EU legislation imposes no restrictions.

^[xiii] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/243324/Hearing%2002.12.2021%20testimony%20Emerman.pdf

^[xiv] The signatories consider mining waste, the extractive waste directive and related BAT norms as insufficient. Pressure due to fast-tracked permitting, and the reversal of evidence in favor of corporate misconduct in European regulations, including the CRMA, is worsening socioecological conditions in Europe and beyond. 

^[xv] Certej 1971; Aznalcóllar, 1998; Baia Mare and Baia Borşa, 2000; Aitik, 2000; Sasa, 2003; Malvési, 2004; Ajka, 2010; Talvivaara, 2012; Kostajnik, 2014; Kittilä/Suurikuusikko, 2015; Cobre Las Cruces, 2019; Kevitsa, 2023.

^[xvi] Pitron, G.; Pérez, J.-L. (2019). Le vert n’est pas vert! [film]. Paris: Arte France.

^[xvii] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), 2023. statement “Deep-Sea Mining: assessing evidence on future needs and environmental impacts”. https://easac.eu/publications/details/deep-sea-mining-assessing-evidence-on-future-needs-and-environmental-impacts

^[xviii] “Today, depending on the metal concerned, about three times as much material needs to be moved for the same ore extraction as a century ago, with concomitant increases in land disruption, groundwater implications and energy use”. International Resource Panel (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. Nairobi: UNEP. At: https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/decoupling.pdf

^[xix] In Romania, the proposed Rovina mine has 0.16% copper and it would be the second largest in Europe.

^[xx] Bolger, Meadhbh, Diego Marin, Adrien Tofighi-Niaki, and Louelle Seelmann. “‘Green Mining’ Is a Myth: The Case for Cutting EU Resource Consumption.” Brussels,: European Environmental Bureau Friends of the Earth Europe, 2021, p.14. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Methodology-considerations-Annex-to-green-mining-is-a-myth.pdf.

^[xxi] Dunlap, Alexander. “The Green Economy as Counterinsurgency, or the Ontological Foundations for Permanent Ecological Catastrophe.” Environmental Policy and Science, 2023, 39–50.

^[xxii] Michaux, Simon P. “The Mining of Minerals and the Limits to Growth.” Geological Survey of Finland: Espoo, Finland, 2021, 1–72.; partially exposed by Simon Michaux to DG GROW on November 18th 2022

^[xxiii] Dunlap, Alexander. “Spreading ‘Green’ Infrastructural Harm: Mapping Conflicts and Socioecological Disruptions within the European Union’s Transnational Energy Grid.” Globalizations 20, no. 6 (2023): 907–31, https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2021.1996518.

^[xxiv] Objection submitted to the Commission’s DG GROW on 22nd November 2022 by MiningWatch Portugal

^[xxv] 10 years of EU’s failed biofuels policy has wiped out forests the size of the Netherlands – study – Transport & Environment (transportenvironment.org) https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/10-years-of-eus-failed-biofuels-policy-has-wiped-out-forests-the-size-of-the-netherlands-study/

Signatories reject the proposed legislation because of its disregard for environmental and human rights, endorsement of social engineering, and failure to address Europe’s obsolete mining regulations and the urgency of reducing demand. If approved, the Act will fast-track permitting procedures, water down environmental laws and set the floor to inject billions of euros into socially and environmentally irresponsible mining corporations.

“The European Parliament and the Commission had the opportunity to meet the needs of local communities with this law and they failed miserably,” says Bojana Novakovic from the movement against lithium mining “Marš sa Drine” in Serbia. “We are tired of begging, pleading and negotiating. The EU has failed us, so we are sending a clear message – withdraw the law or you will see us on the streets and in court.”

The announcement earlier this week of a political agreement between the European Parliament and the European Council to push forward with the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) has brought about an immediate reaction among civil society organizations, local communities as well as experts and academics across the world. Recalling the ongoing political crisis in Portugal and its connection with two lithium mining projects, the letter warns that the regulation will extend the influence of the mining lobby and spread even more corruption due to less regulation. 

It also exposes how EU policymakers have failed to see beyond the Brussels ‘bubble’, disregarding the potentially catastrophic impacts of a new mining boom. Signatories condemn the proposed legislation’s endorsement of ‘social acceptance’ activities aimed at changing public opposition to mining projects into passive tolerance or active support. The letter also exposes 25 projects funded by the EU at a total cost of €181M with deliverables that seek out to build public acceptance for extractive projects.

“It’s simple for us,” says a representant from MiningWatch Romania: “Approval of the CRMA will lead to legal action as the proposed legislation would breach rights of public participation in environmental decision making, enshrined by the Aarhus Convention which the European Union ratified.”

On the situation in Portugal, the founder of MiningWatch Portugal, Nik Völker, adds: “Unfortunately, non-compliance seems to be the norm in Portugal, even in well-documented cases known to the authorities. The Borba tragedy, the tailings from the Panasqueira mine and, since last week, the acid waters in Aljustrel, also testify to a precarious state of the competent authorities. The Brussels ‘bubble’ that envisages permitting in two years seems a long way from our reality of projects that are already half a decade in the process, for example for Lithium in the Barroso area.”

Letter to the Commission: https://miningwatch.pt/public/OpenLetter-CSO-CRMA_2023-11-16.pdf

FEAR OF A RETURN OF THE MINES: Brussels is preparing a new law — the Critical Raw Materials Act — to facilitate mining in Europe. But activists are now mobilizing against it, warning the law would steamroll over local environmental opposition and even allow the construction of mines in protected natural reserves.

There’s always a news hook: “In Portugal the prime minister resigned over a probe into corruption over lithium mining,” Bojana Novakovic, a Serbian-Australian actor-turned-activist who is campaigning against mining projects, told Playbook. “Communities on the ground … have been expressing grave concerns about lack of transparency relating to this project for years.”

Corruption warning: “Corruption is endemic to mining, and the Critical Raw Materials [Act] is a law which would simply make more of that corruption legal,” Novakovic said. “It would make the lives of local communities, the lands we care for and the nature we live with even more difficult than it is now.”

Background: The law — currently in negotiations — establishes a benchmark that at least 10 percent of the “strategic raw materials” consumed by the EU should be extracted in domestic mines. As part of the measures to speed up mining projects, the regulation would reduce opportunities for local opposition groups to delay permits for new mines.

‘Overriding public interest’: The act currently sets a deadline for authorities of a maximum of 24 months to grant extraction permits. It also limits the public consultation period for environmental impact assessments to 90 days, pointing to an “overriding public interest” that such projects move forward.

Activists gear up: “The Critical Raw Materials Act is set to take a wrecking ball to human rights and environmental protection,” Laura Sullivan from the WeMove Europe activist network told Playbook. Together with Novakovic and other local organizations, WeMove is launching an online petition to scrap the act.

Re-shoring pollution: “Supplying Europe used to be a Global South problem and was arguably easier to hide,” Sullivan argued. “But the Critical Raw Materials Act will bring the mining scale up to European countries like Portugal, Spain, Ireland … it’s about to become a major problem for people in Europe.”

The Regulatory Institute for Renewable Energy and the Environment (RERI) has said that the Ministry of Mining and Energy is unjustifiably extending the deadline for Rio Tinto to obtain a license for lithium mining in Serbia.

Rio Tinto has been trying for more than two years to obtain approval to open a lithium exploration mine in Serbia and it needs a document that allows it to start mining lithium in Serbia, despite the fact that it did not attach the necessary documentation to the relevant application, RERI added.

The Serbian government did say that the Rio Tinto lithium project in Serbia had been stopped and that all line authorities would immediately suspend all relevant procedures.

Nevertheless, the Ministry of Mining and Energy has not stopped the procedure for issuing the permit for lithium exploitation, but over the course of two years, without giving clear reasons, extended the deadline for the company to complete the documentation 11 times.

“Rio Tinto does not have the document on determining the scope and content of the environmental impact assessment study, because it was canceled in January of last year,” says Hristina Vojvodić, RERI’s legal advisor.

Although the company filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court against the annulment decision, this does not constitute a justified reason for extending the deadline for supplementing the relevant documentation, the statement added.

(Nova Ekonomija) Full article at Serbian Monitor