Critical Raw Materials Act: do people have a right to know about strategic projects?

By ClientEarth environmental democracy lawyer Ilze Tralmaka

The Critical Raw Materials Act (“CRMA”) adopted in March 2024 was the EU’s response to the world-wide critical minerals race. Some questionable choices have already been made in attempt to secure first-hand access to critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, boron and others. On 13 February, the Members of the European Parliament had to call for the Commission to suspend the EU - Rwanda deal on sustainable value chains for critical raw materials due to serious allegations of Rwanda violating territorial integrity and committing war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  

Currently, the European Critical Raw Materials Board (the “Board”) is assessing whether to declare specific mining projects, located both inside and outside of the EU, as “strategic”. This status would grant the projects easier access to financing, a priority status in national administrative and judicial processes as well as a legal presumption that these projects are of public interest or serve public health and safety. Unfortunately, these decisions are taken entirely behind closed doors with no possibility for the public affected by the planned projects or other stakeholders to input evidence, concerns and expertise. 

Who decides whether a project is “strategic”?  

Mining and recycling projects that fulfil certain criteria (Art. 6 CRMA) can be recognised as strategic by the Commission. This decision is taken in consultation with the Board, which consists of the Commission and the Member States. In practice, the Commission first assesses whether a particular project fulfils the criteria and forwards that assessment to Member States. Member States (or third countries) whose territory is concerned by the project can veto further assessment. 

It is worth noting that the decision appears to be taken entirely based on the information provided by the project promoter. Although the decision concerns, among others, an evaluation of environmental impacts and public engagement (Art. 6(1)(c) CRMA), there is no formal process for the public to engage. Moreover, there is no publicly available information on the projects or the assessment process.  

Near complete lack of transparency  

In the process of assessment of the current batch of applications, the Commission has opted for an opaque process concerning the applications or the project assessments. This means that the public has no access to any information about the application under consideration, even if the members of local communities are going to be directly affected by a given mine or are the very targets of the “meaningful engagement” plan. It is important to note that meaningful engagement with local communities is one of the criteria for a strategic project (Article 6(1)(c) CRMA) and that the project promoters must show how meaningful engagement with local communities will be ensured. 

So far, multiple access to information requests have been filed by non-governmental organisations to access parts of information about the project applications held by the Commission.  They have all been rejected on two grounds: The Commission believes that withholding the information is necessary to protect an internal decision-making process on various policy options, protecting it from external pressure. It also believes that if the applications were rejected, disclosure would undermine the commercial interests of the project promoters. A similar reasoning was used by the Commission to reject ClientEarth’s request for documents submitted as evidence of compliance with environmental sustainability and meaningful public engagement criteria (EASE 2024/6198 ). 

This logic is not convincing. Firstly, the environmental information that should be included in the project application is essentially the information usually found in environmental impact assessments (“EIA”). These assessments are public and according to EU law must be subject to public participation. Secondly, any plans for meaningful engagement with local communities will necessarily become available to the target audience. This information can neither reveal any policy options the Commission has, nor disclose any protected commercial secrets that may undermine fair competition.  

To make matters worse, the Commission appears to keep Member States from disclosing any information to the public as well. For example, in January 2025 the Finnish government informed the public about its decision to refrain from using its right to object in relation to 16 Finland-based projects. The Finnish government expressly referred to the Commission-mandated confidentiality as the reason for providing no more details. 

Flawed process: how secrecy undermines trust in critical raw materials projects 

From the outset, the CRMA excludes local communities and other stakeholders from the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process on strategic projects. While this can seemingly speed up the process at the Commission in the short run, this choice is short-sighted. Lack of clarity on the assessment process and the evidence taken into consideration in the Commission’s decision-making process significantly increases the risk of errors. The decision appears to be taken based on information provided exclusively by the project promoter, and given the absence of a formal process for the public or other stakeholders to submit its evidence, it may lead to projects being declared strategic even though they fail to fulfil the legal criteria. Correcting such errors through internal review requests (Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation) on the EU level or through the national courts is likely to only prolong legal uncertainty and undermine investment security. 

Therefore the Commission must urgently change its practice and proactively ensure that information about both current and future project applications is fully accessible to the public. While securing raw materials is important, mining projects must be developed sustainably and in full respect of environmental standards and the rights of local communities. Rather than shielding a decision-making process built on one-sided input, the Commission should strive for open and transparent decision-making based on all available information.  This would allow potential errors to be identified and corrected early—before final decisions are made—ensuring both legal certainty and public trust.