Increased demand from importing states to source and secure transition minerals – particularly by Global North countries less endowed with these resources – is fuelling a new rush to extract minerals in producing countries, which can further entrench unjust distribution of benefits and burdens of extracting minerals.

The mining sector has a well-known history of human rights and environmental abuse: the Resource Centre has tracked 834 such allegations in transition minerals mining operations since 2010. The extractive sector has long been the most dangerous for human rights defenders (HRDs). Communities in producing jurisdictions are raising alarm: cutting corners on social, human rights and environmental safeguards to secure mineral supply chains in this new mineral boom, predicated on the false logic that engaging communities and identifying human rights and environmental risks will slow down project development rather than ensure viability and sustainability, in fact translates into material human rights and environmental risks breeding conflicts.

This dynamic is at play in the European Union (EU). Its Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) adopted in 2024 aims at securing the EU’s mineral supply chains – critical for its clean energy transition and other industrial needs.

Under the mandate of the CRMA, the European Commission approved in 2025 60 "strategic" extracting, processing, recycling and substitution projects, which are destined to "meaningfully contribute" to the objectives of the law. Forty-seven projects are to be located within the EU borders and 13 are located outside of the EU; all of the latter involve only mining or processing (four out of 13), raising questions about whether producing countries will benefit from value addition.

We looked at the 13 proposed strategic projects outside of the EU, including their selection process by the European Commission, along with how their current and future impacts on communities and the environment will be managed, listening to the voices of local communities living in the vicinity of the proposed projects. We examined the policies – or lack thereof – of companies proposing the projects as well as information on past and potential social and environmental harms associated with the companies that operate these projects.

Our research revealed an inconsistent approach to key human rights policies and potentially serious gaps in local engagement and respect for public participation and meaningful engagement with communities and Indigenous Peoples. Key findings included: 

• Eight out of 13 strategic projects located outside EU borders will operate in states associated with weak regulatory frameworks, heightened corruption and governance risks. At least four projects will operate in poor and water-stressed regions in Madagascar, South Africa, Malawi and Zambia, where new extraction may worsen conditions.
• None of the promoters of strategic projects outside the EU currently has both a publicly available human rights policy, including on the protection of human rights defenders, and an environmental, human rights and social impact assessment for the proposed project.
• Only one project – the Dumont nickel project in Canada, proposed by Magneto Investments Limited – has a publicly available environmental impact assessment, published in 2015.
• Only three projects are associated with companies that have publicly available human rights policies: Société Le Nickel (Eramet), Rio Tinto and Jervois Global.
• Only two project promoters (Eramet – parent company of Société Le Nickel and Rio Tinto) are members of multistakeholder initiatives on responsible mining or supporters of relevant industry standards.

Concerns over sustainability assessment and selection criteria

Article 6.1(c) of the CRMA demands that strategic projects:

“would be implemented sustainably, in particular as regards the monitoring, prevention and minimisation of environmental impacts, the prevention and minimisation of socially adverse impacts through the use of socially responsible practices including respect for human rights, indigenous peoples and labour rights, in particular in the case of involuntary resettlement, potential for quality job creation and meaningful engagement with local communities and relevant social partners, and the use of transparent business practices with adequate compliance policies to prevent and minimise risks of adverse impacts on the proper functioning of public administration, including corruption and bribery”.

Annex III further details that projects should be compliant with national regulations and relevant international instruments including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

However, how these criteria have been assessed in practice in the selection process has remained unclear - as no details have been made available in the Commission’s decisions on strategic projects. 

Civil society has already criticised the opaque selection process for the EU strategic projects. Public information about how projects were selected, whether the public was involved, as well as the criteria used in the selection and evaluation processes has been limited. In particular, no information is available on the social, human rights and environmental policies of the project promoters and their assessment by the European Commission.

Green Legal Impact, a legal NGO, argues that the European Commission has a legal duty to state the grounds on which decisions are based. It described the Commission’s failure to explain how the selected projects have been assessed to meet required sustainability criteria as “a textbook failure to state reasons” and warned that decisions that do not adequately state the factual and legal grounds on which they are based are routinely annulled by the European Court of Justice.

The lack of information on how project promoters will meaningfully engage with local communities raises questions about strategic projects compliance with the Aarhus Convention, a legally binding international agreement granting rights of public access to environmental information, decision-making and seeking justice in environmental matters. The Aarhus Convention explicitly states that effective public participation shall happen when “all options are still open” - i.e. before the decision to mine is granted. In Portugal, the Aarhus Convention committee recently found the Barroso lithium mining project, owned by Savannah Resources and selected as strategic by the Commission, to be breaching citizens’ rights to environmental and public participation. The Aarhus Convention has been ratified by EU Member States, as well as five countries with proposed strategic projects, namely Kazakhstan, Norway, Serbia, Ukraine and United Kingdom. Although the Convention does not extend to other countries with selected strategic projects, the EU should nonetheless strive to uphold the Conventions’ core principles in these contexts to prevent discrimination against affected communities abroad and to maintain standards of best practice.

Focus on strategic projects outside of the European Union

Most of the 13 projects have already been permitted – with the exception of the Jadar project in Serbia and the Maniry project in Madagascar. A significant proportion of the promoter companies are not headquartered in the countries where they operate. Some, such as Kobaloni Energy or Sarytogan Graphite, are relatively new or small, while others, such as Rio Tinto or Eramet, are well-established companies.

Local concerns are emerging

Although none of the strategic projects outside the EU is currently in operation, concerns arise from contexts in which these projects are to take place.

Of the 13 strategic projects outside the EU’s borders, eight will operate in states associated with weak regulatory frameworks and heightened corruption and governance risks – namely Serbia, Zambia, Madagascar, Brazil, Malawi, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Ukraine – - countries that score below 50% on Worldwide Governance Indicators.  At least four projects will operate in poor and water-stressed regions in Madagascar, South Africa, Malawi and Zambia, where new extraction may worsen conditions without proper safeguards.

Specific risks of human rights and environmental harm have also been raised, for instance:

In Madagascar, the Maniry Graphite mine project, proposed by Evion, headquartered in Australia, will take place in one of the poorest districts that also has been the hardest hit by drought in recent years. The project is also reported to likely require the displacement of local communities, but the region’s low literacy rates could hinder the meaningful participation of local communities in the consultation processes unless these are explicitly designed to accommodate such limitations – likely requiring both additional time and resources to support the effort. Experts and activists are worried about a potential mining rush in the country, given weaknesses in the legal framework on environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA) in the country as an operating permit can be granted before the ESIA has been approved. Further, the Minister of the Environment has the power to overrule a decision of the technical agency responsible for approving ESIAs and granting environmental permits. The country’s recent military coup introduces additional uncertainty around these processes.

In Malawi, the Songwe Hill rare earths project, proposed by Mkango Resources, headquartered in Canada, will be located in Phalombe District, which faces chronic water scarcity and recurring droughts. Rare earth extraction in this region could require large volumes of water for dust control and mineral separation, potentially reducing water access for local communities. Although the Songwe Hill rare earths project is still under development, it allegedly exacerbated division amongst chiefs and inhabitants of surrounding villages, and reportedly damaged infrastructure of the closest village.

In Greenland, legacy mine sites have caused significant metal pollution (mostly lead and zinc) due to lack of adequate environmental studies and regulation. The cold climate slows natural recovery, leaving some areas contaminated for more than 50 years. Given this history, GreenRoc Strategic Materials’ proposed graphite project in Greenland raises concerns about potential water pollution and its impacts on local food sources, which are vital to Inuit hunter-gatherer livelihoods.

Missing corporate policies

According to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights – regardless of the content of national legislation and regulatory frameworks. A crucial step is adopting corporate human rights policies and due diligence processes. The commencement of mining projects should be preceded by independent environmental, social and human rights impact assessments – and where applicable, be conditional on having obtained the full free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples where relevant.

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre reached out to all promoters of non-EU strategic projects to ask about their policies on human rights and environmental impact assessments. Out of the 13 project promoters, only four responded: Rio Tinto, Société Le Nickel (Eramet), Jervois Global and Mkango Resources. These responses, along with web-based research, revealed that:

• No promoter of strategic projects outside the EU currently has both a publicly-available human rights policy, including on the protection of human rights defenders, and an environmental, human rights and social impact assessment for the proposed project.
• Only the Dumont nickel project in Canada, proposed by Magneto Investments Limited, has a publicly available environmental impact assessment, published in 2015. When it was published, however, local civil society groups complained that health and environmental impacts remain significantly underestimated, given that the project is set to become the country’s largest open-pit mine and a major source of pollutants. Since Dumont’s environmental impact assessment has not been modified, local civil society in Canada remains concerned about the mine’s impacts. It is also noteworthy that the controversial Jadar project only has draft environmental and social impact assessments available.
• Three projects are associated with companies that have publicly available human rights policies: Société Le Nickel (Eramet), Rio Tinto and Jervois Global. Mkango Resources does not currently have any relevant policies available online, but its response highlights that relevant policies will be published as the project develops towards construction.
• Only two project promoters (Eramet – parent company of Société Le Nickel and Rio Tinto) are members of multistakeholder initiatives on responsible mining or supporters of relevant industry standards.

Gaps in meaningful engagement, local participation and consent

Under the CRMA, “meaningful engagement with local communities and relevant social partners” is a requirement for potential strategic projects. However, there is little detail on what makes a process “meaningful”. In a global context where permitting and licensing processes are accelerating to enable rapid extraction, meaningful engagement is often wrongly perceived as an impediment to mining project development. As a result, some companies may limit engagement or even violate the right to FPIC of Indigenous Peoples. But research is clear that failure to adequately engage with rights-holders is a recipe for rights violations, conflicts and failure to secure public buy-in, with significant financial and operational repercussions, as well as legal challenge.

Meaningful engagement involves several key actions to ensure public participation, including the state’s effective protection of participation rights, companies having robust policies on rights-holders stakeholder engagement, the ability of rightsholders to influence outcomes and strong access to information, and full transparency. Meaningful engagement is necessary in the selection of strategic projects, but also in the permitting, exploration, operation and closure stages of a project.

Our research on the 13 EU projects reveals potentially serious gaps in local engagement and respect for public participation and meaningful engagement with communities and Indigenous Peoples.

• In sum, for most projects, there is little evidence of meaningful engagement and participation so far of affected rightsholders by the strategic project promoters.
• Only one project promoter, Jervois Global (São Miguel Paulista project) and a strategic project, Dumont Nickel (owned by Magneto Investments), have specific policies on stakeholder engagement. Rio Tinto and Eramet, however, have requirements on stakeholder engagement embedded in their human rights policies and the Dumont project also secured a memorandum of understanding with a First Nation group in 2017.
• In Norway, the Nussir copper project, proposed by Nussir ASA, to be located on Indigenous Sámi land is reportedly being imposed on local Sámi People without their FPIC. It is expected to affect Sámi communities’ livelihoods by destroying reindeer grazing land and dumping toxic waste in the fjord where they fish.

Project promoters have been associated with allegations of human rights abuses in other operations

At least four of the 13 companies associated with strategic projects outside the EU have records of alleged human rights and environmental abuses, including corruption, in other operations they own. Rio Tinto, for instance, project promoter of the Jadar project, has been associated with 26 allegations, seven lawsuits and 21 attacks agianst human rights defenders in the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre Transition Minerals Tracker between 2010 and 2024. French Eramet, project promoter of the CaledoNi project through their subsidiary, Societé Le Nickel, in New Caledonia, and its subsidiaries (COMILOG and GCO) have been linked to at least five allegations, and two lawsuits between 2003 and 2024. Other more junior project promoters have not yet been associated with allegations of abuses – equally, all companies should be asked to demonstrate how they will ensure respect for human rights and the environment.

Strategic project status comes with benefits – and must come with human rights obligations 

According to Article 10 of the CRMA, “Strategic Projects” in the EU will benefit from streamlined and accelerated permitting procedures. All strategic projects also receive support from the Commission “to accelerate and crowd-in private investments”. Strategic projects will have access to the advice of a finance subgroup of the European Critical Raw Materials Board, including in relation to private financing, support from the European Investment Bank Group or other international financial institutions, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, existing EU member states’ instruments and and financing programmes, especially the Global Gateway initiative.

This access and support have already begun to bear fruit for strategic projects. For example, the Maniry graphite project in Madagascar, promoted and owned by Australian company Evion Group, announced to investors on the Australian Stock Exchange that the company has been working with EU officials to apply for funding in excess of EUR 1,200,000.

The CRMA also makes provision for the EU to support strategic projects to conclude offtake agreements by connecting promoters of strategic projects with potential off-takers.

The EU, as well as other strategic projects financiers and lenders, must ensure that these projects do not come at the expense of the environment or local communities. Investors should actively engage with companies they finance to develop and strengthen their human rights policies and practices, both prior to investment decisions and throughout the life of the project.

Conclusion: More transparency and oversight are needed

The CRMA strategic projects come with risks of human rights violations and environmental harm that must be closely monitored. They must also contribute to shared prosperity, equity and justice in transition minerals supply chains through ensuring that producing countries benefit from value addition – an open question as most of the non-EU strategic projects are extraction projects.

For projects to be located outside of the EU where serious gaps in legislative and regulatory frameworks exist or unstable political systems prevail, not only should the EU advocate for and support its partner countries in filling these gaps – it must also require that project promoters have sound policies in place to address these risks. These must be available for the public and concerned rightsholders to build effective accountability.

The CRMA states that the recognition of strategic projects can be withdrawn if the project no longer fulfils the relevant criteria, including the sustainability criteria of Article 6.1 (c), which requires ongoing and vigilant scrutiny of corporate policies and project impact assessments. Assessing whether project promoters have rights-respecting policies and due diligence processes in place and robust plans to ensure meaningful engagement of local communities should serve as the basis for future reviews of the strategic project status. The EU Raw Materials Coalition published guidelines with concrete recommendations for the European Commission, avoiding sole reliance on certification schemes.

Greater due diligence, transparency and public monitoring of strategic projects are key to prevent human rights abuses and environmental harm. But building public trust through meaningful engagement, robust human rights due diligence and transparency should not be seen as mere compliance. It should instead be seen as critical to reducing conflict and disruption, and building shared prosperity with host communities, in the very same supply chains the EU wants to secure.