Investigation shows mining projects – vetoed by experts

Just as citizens in Covas do Barroso prepare new legal action to block an administrative servitude – giving mining company Savannah Resources the right to access private land – a new investigation has raised questions of political pressure during the selection of Europe’s ‘strategic raw materials projects’.

The investigation – published four days ago by German outlet Table.Briefings – is based on confidential internal European Commission documents. In other words, documents that, normally, outside parties would not be seeing. But in this case they were ‘leaked’.

These documents show that 11 projects absent from a preliminary list, dated February 20, 2025, in the selection process for ‘strategic projects’ under the European Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), suddenly ‘appeared’ in ‘the final list presented a month later.

These 11 projects were given ‘unfavourable assessments during an initial technical evaluation conducted by external experts’, explains Table.Briefings.

In the case of just one of the projects, the Barroso mine, the expert concerns focussed on damaging environmental, social and local economic consequences of mining activity envisaged. But there are two others – equally locally contested: the Romano mine, to be exploited by Lusorecursos, and the Lift One lithium refinery project by Lifthium Energy (José de Mello, Bondalti).

These projects’ sudden inclusion onto the final list is not only adding to locals’ disquiet; it is worrying all those who want to see an honest, transparent energy transition.

Said raw materials policy advisor Michael Reckordt, who works out of PowerShift Germany, “the process raises serious concerns that environmental, human rights and social criteria played little role in the final selection of Strategic Projects. For affected communities contesting these projects for years, this is deeply troubling.”

A press release put out by MiningWatch Portugal stresses that Table.Briefings’ revelations are particularly significant for Portugal, “where all lithium projects currently classified at Strategic Projects at EU level appear among the projects later incorporated into the final selection process.” Again, and ‘in other words’, projects seen by outside experts as carrying numerous negative consequences have made it through the selection process.

The Barroso project is already being challenged in the General Court of the European Union (by local association Unidos em Defesa de Covas do Barroso (UDCB) and ClientEarth). The case raises concerns over water resources, biodiversity, public participation and tailings dam safety, so – in one way – the Table.Briefings’ investigation can only put more power behind these arguments. 

Catarina Alves of UDCB stresses: “The leaked documents reinforce our concerns that political interests prevailed over environmental safeguards, transparency and citizens’ rights.”

The Table.Briefings investigation also reports that the “European Commission repeatedly refused requests for access to technical assessments and internal evaluation documents submitted under EU access to documents legislation and the Aarhus Convention, invoking reasons related to public security and the protection of economic and commercial interests.

Says MiningWatch Portugal: “For affected communities and civil society organisations across Europe, these revelations reinforce longstanding concerns regarding the governance of mining and lithium projects within the framework of the EU’s strategic raw materials agenda, amid growing political controversies and social conflicts linked to extractive projects.

Nik Völker, co-founder of MiningWatch Portugal, adds: “The opaque selection procedures, unpublished technical assessments and repeated refusals of access to environmental information raise serious concerns about the governance culture around the strategic mining projects in Europe and beyond. Even now, the public does not know who the allegedly independent experts were, what affiliations they may have had, or whether possible conflicts of interest were properly examined.”

The CRMA was presented by the European Union as a strategic instrument to secure access to raw materials needed for the energy transition while upholding high environmental, social and governance standards. However, environmental organisations, legal experts and affected communities increasingly warn that the implementation of the legislation is moving in the opposite direction: accelerating permitting procedures, limiting public scrutiny and increasing political pressure around controversial industrial projects, says MiningWatch.

“The controversy surrounding the Strategic Projects selection process also emerges at a moment when the European Commission is considering revisions to the Water Framework Directive – one of the EU’s central environmental safeguards – explicitly aimed at removing “regulatory bottlenecks” linked to critical raw materials and industrial projects. Environmental organisations and researchers have warned that weakening the Directive’s non-deterioration principle could significantly reduce protections for rivers, groundwater and drinking water resources in favour of mining and industrial development.

“Although Strategic Project status does not replace national permitting procedures or environmental law, it substantially increases political and economic pressure on authorities responsible for approving projects. Against a backdrop of growing conflicts around mining, lithium extraction and industrial land use across Europe, the revelations intensify broader debates on democratic transparency, environmental justice, access to environmental information and the role of local communities in decisions shaping Europe’s energy and industrial transition, ends the MiningWatch press release.

Source: MIningWatch Portugal/ Table.Briefings/ Público