Berlin, 13.05.2026: A published today Table.Media research The Commission's internal documents call into question the selection of strategic raw material projects. Technical assessments were therefore not consistently taken into account in the final decision, although individual projects present significant social and environmental risks.
Michael Reckordt, PowerShift's Raw Materials Policy Officer, comments:
“As a civil society organisation, we have criticised the lack of transparency in the selection of Strategic Projects since the first call for tenders. Apparently rightly so: This research shows that the examination of environmental, human rights and other standards by external experts did not play a decisive role in the decision. This is a sign of poverty for the EU Commission and the implementation of its raw materials strategy. Even worse: It is a slap in the face for those affected by mining, who have been arguing against individual mining projects on a fact-based basis for years.”
One of the controversial projects is the lithium project in Covas do Barroso, Portugal. Michael Reckordt said:
“The environmental law organisation ClientEarth is taking the project to European courts, with the majority of people in the region rejecting it. As the research now shows, it might not have passed the first evaluation and had to be added afterwards. This requires a complete explanation of who made this decision and with what motivation.”
Securing critical raw materials in Europe must not be at the expense of transparency, environmental standards and human rights. The project selection criteria must be comprehensible and verifiable.
Background information on the risks of the Critical Raw Materials Act and the selection of strategic raw materials projects can be found in our publications: https://power-shift.de/mitsprache-guide-crma/
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact:
- Michael Reckordt, PowerShift Policy Officer, michael.reckordt@power-shift.de, +49 (0)163 6336372
