Between Green Ambitions and Geopolitical Realities: EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act – WS 09 2025

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

13 May 2025 | 16:30 - 17:30 CEST | Room 8 | Transcript
Consolidated programme 2025

Proposals: (#5), #51 plus Norwegian stakeholder and IEEE (implementation success stories)

Get involved!

You are invited to become a member of the Session Org Team by simply subscribing to the mailing list. By doing so, you agree that your name and affiliation will be published at the relevant session wiki page. Please reply to the email send to you to confirm your subscription.

Kindly note that it may take a while until the Org Team is formed and starts working.

To follow the current discussion on this topic, see the discussion tab on the upper left side of this page.

Session teaser

The strategic relevance of raw materials is growing as Europe seeks to reduce its dependence on external suppliers and strengthen its resilience. This session offers an introduction to the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, highlighting its goals and key instruments. A case study of extraction within Europe will shed light on both opportunities and challenges. Moreover, the session also discusses the environmental impacts of the CRMA.

Session description

The strategic importance of raw materials has become increasingly apparent. China has imposed export restrictions on critical resources amid trade tensions with the United States. Concurrently, the U.S. has linked military aid to Ukraine with access to its mineral wealth, proposing a deal that would grant the U.S. significant control over Ukraine's natural resources.​

In response to these global dynamics and its heavy reliance on third countries—particularly China—for critical raw materials, Europe seeks greater strategic autonomy. The European Union's Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), adopted in March 2024, aims to bolster the EU's capacity for extraction, processing, and recycling of these essential materials.​

This session will commence with an overview of the CRMA's objectives, underlying rationale, and key instruments. Following this, a specific case study of raw material extraction within Europe will be presented, highlighting both the opportunities and challenges involved. Beyond supply security, the discussion will also delve into the environmental risks associated with developing a resilient raw materials sector within the EU.

Format

The session will alternate between brief inputs and open discussion. It will begin with a general introduction to the topic by the first speaker. Subsequent speakers will focus on specific aspects in their contributions, followed by a discussion shaped by questions directed to the audience. If time permits, the session will conclude with an open floor for audience reflections, moderated by the organizers. To kick things off, we will use Mentimeter for initial engagement.

Further reading

  • Official Page of the Critical Raw Materials Act by the EU
  • Fact Sheet for a quick overview
  • Knowledge base for environmental impact by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
  • Article on consequences of mining titled "The dystopian lake filled by the world’s tech lust"
  • Opinion highlighting also missing aspects like the costs and tradeoffs of the CRMA

People

Please provide name and institution for all people you list here.

Programme Committee member(s)

  • Karen Mulberry, IEEE Standards Association (SA)

The Programme Committee supports the programme planning process and works closely with the Secretariat. Members of the committee give advice on the topics, cluster the proposals and assist session organisers in their work. They also ensure that session principles are followed and overlook the complete programme to avoid repetition among sessions.

Focal Point

  • Claire Patzig, Hasso-Plattner Institut

Focal Points take over the responsibility and lead of the session organisation. They work in close cooperation with the respective member of the Programme Committee and the EuroDIG Secretariat and are kindly requested to follow EuroDIG’s session principles.

Organising Team (Org Team) List Org Team members here as they sign up.

  • Constance Weise, IEEE Standards Association (SA)
  • Karen McCabe, IEEE Standards Association (SA)
  • Mariam Chaladze, ISET
  • Hamid Pouran

The Org Team is shaping the session. Org Teams are open, and every interested individual can become a member by subscribing to the mailing list.

Key Participants

  • Dr. Hamid Pouran, Senior Consultant, Environmental Technology & Sustainability, IEEE EPPC Working Group Member on Energy, and Lecturer in Environmental Technology
  • Cruz Glynka, Humanity in Action Senior Fellow

Key Participants (also speakers) are experts willing to provide their knowledge during a session. Key Participants should contribute to the session planning process and keep statements short and punchy during the session. They will be selected and assigned by the Org Team, ensuring a stakeholder balanced dialogue also considering gender and geographical balance. Please provide short CV’s of the Key Participants at the Wiki or link to another source.

Moderator

  • Claire Patzig, Hasso-Plattner Institut

The moderator is the facilitator of the session at the event they must attend on-site. Moderators are responsible for including the audience and encouraging a lively interaction among all session attendants. Please make sure the moderator takes a neutral role and can balance between all speakers. Please provide short CV of the moderator of your session at the Wiki or link to another source.

Remote Moderator

Trained remote moderators will be assigned by the EuroDIG secretariat to each session.

Reporter

The members of the Programme Committee report on the session and formulate messages that are agreed with the audience by consensus.

Through a cooperation with the Geneva Internet Platform AI generated session reports and stats will be available after EuroDIG.

Current discussion, conference calls, schedules and minutes

See the discussion tab on the upper left side of this page. Please use this page to publish:

  • dates for virtual meetings or coordination calls
  • short summary of calls or email exchange

Please be as open and transparent as possible in order to allow others to get involved and contact you. Use the wiki not only as the place to publish results but also to summarize the discussion process.

Messages

  • are summarised on a slide and presented to the audience at the end of each session
  • relate to the session and to European Internet governance policy
  • are forward looking and propose goals and activities that can be initiated after EuroDIG (recommendations)
  • are in (rough) consensus with the audience

Video record

Will be provided here after the event.

Transcript

Disclaimer: This is not an official record of the session. The DiploAI system automatically generates these resources from the audiovisual recording. Resources are presented in their original format, as provided by the AI (e.g. including any spelling mistakes). The accuracy of these resources cannot be guaranteed.

The Geneva Internet Platform will provide transcript, session report and additional details shortly after the session.


Claire Patzig: on-site as well as online on the ninth workshop which will focus on the Critical Raw Materials Act. Before I will start with any input, we will listen to our online moderators.

Online moderator: Yes, welcome everyone. It’s a pleasure to welcome you to the session about between green ambitions and geopolitical realities, EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act. I will be remote moderating this session. For more information about the session and the speakers, please visit the Eurodig wiki. We’ll also share the link in the chat. And in case you do have a question, we encourage you to raise your hand and present the question on yourself or if you would like me to ask the question, you could also write the question in the chat. Please be reminded to put a cue in front of your question. I’m also going to read out really quickly the session rules. We ask you to please enter with your full name. As I said, to ask a question, just raise your hand and you will then be unmuted to ask a question when the floor is given to you. When speaking, we ask you to please switch on the video and also state your name and affiliation. We also ask to do not share any links in the Zoom meetings, even with your colleagues. Thank you very much.

Claire Patzig: All right. This is already the afternoon and nevertheless I’m going to bother you with a couple of numbers in the upcoming minutes, but still we will try to make the session as interactive as possible. So I will start with a very short and brief introduction into the ACT Act itself and then both of our experts will focus on implementation success stories within Europe as well as the social and environmental dimension of this topic and I will introduce them just briefly before they are going to start with the input. We will have options for questions at any given point, so after each speaker you can already ask your first ideas or questions and then we hopefully have lots of discussion in the end of the session. Just to give you a short overview into the ACT itself, the EU categorized 34 materials as so-called critical or strategic raw materials. So these are ones where on the one hand they have a huge economic importance, so they play a huge role in many manufacturing processes, as well as that they have a strategic dimension for some of them because they are important for huge undertaking such as the green or the digital transition. I think a very common example here would be lithium for batteries and their production. And so in order to secure that, we can see here the major European suppliers and we can also see that even though there are some European countries already involved with that, we have huge dependencies for example on China and I think that’s a very striking number of 100% when it comes to heavy raw herbs as well as for example 97% of our magnesium supply is coming from China. And just to give you a short notice, if you look at those maps we see for example 63% of all our cobalt is coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. But this has to be interpreted in a geographic way of thinking. This does not mean that those are shipped or sold by companies which headquarter is located within Congo. So for example here we can just as a quick overview see that the market and the companies involved have their headquarters all over the world but we can see a large share within Australia or for Europe for example we see here Switzerland being represented. So it does not necessarily mean if we are talking about those countries that they also own all of their minerals. And also I guess because the topic of the EuroDIG is safeguarding human rights. I think we will not have the time and I think there is room for a whole another workshop simply and only focusing on the working conditions which are happening all over the globe when it comes to mines, when it comes to not the official sector happening there. And even though we don’t necessarily have the room to dedicate the whole session to that, it should be kept in mind when we discuss in with I guess quite a European focus on that topic. So nevertheless What we saw on that map was that lots of mines are all over the world and not necessarily in Europe. And the Critical Raw Materials Act sort of tries to change and diversify our suppliers. So there are four benchmarks which the Act aims to achieve till 2030. So there’s not much time left. So 10% of the EU’s annual consumption is supposed to be extracted within Europe. And that is one of the most controversial numbers. I guess 40% of the processing as well are supposed to happen within the EU. And there is this sort of enhancing recycling so that more than 15% are from recycled materials within Europe. And the last one I think is especially aimed at our dependency as I highlighted on China. So that no more than 65% of the supply of a certain material is coming from a single country. And there are certain actions that are mentioned within that plan. Some of them are more focused on within Europe. And I think all member countries are supposed to sort of do this national strategic stocktaking and also which supply they can offer. They are supposed to sort of share their strategies I think till next week. Then we have the idea of monitoring those materials as well as stress testing the supply chains. And to sort of develop strategic projects and speeding up their mission processes. I think our one speaker will touch upon that later on. And the other aspect is more aimed on the external sources. So to create a new network of partnerships using free trade agreements. There are renegotiations of already existing ones currently happening. As well as using the global gateway initiative for that. And with that I will come to our first speaker, Dr. Hamid Pouran. I don’t even know on which aspects to focus. But he is a huge contributor within the IEEE. He is a senior member there. And he is a working group member on energy and the environment. He is also a lecturer on environmental technologies. And as I just saw he was also part of the last COP delegation. And he will now give you some kind of overview over concrete success stories of that implementation in Europe so far.

Hamid Pouran: Thank you very much. Thanks for inviting me and good afternoon everyone. It’s wonderful to be part of this timely discussion. Before talking about critical minerals, I’d like to provide a little bit of background. We all know about the word celery. It’s very important to us, the money that we receive at the end of the month to pay the bill, keep the lights on, etc. Or for the job that we has a historical context. Celery comes from the Latin word salamium and it was the money that was being paid to Roman soldiers to be able to buy salt because it was a strategic commodity. Or actually, sometimes they were not being paid in money, they were receiving salt. It was extremely important, it was dictating strategic partnerships, trades, even caused wars in some cases. But these days, salt is next to nothing. Something which was extremely important and critical thousands of years ago has no value to us. In 21st century, the new salt, the new strategic materials for us are critical minerals. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and so on. They are the modern salt for us. But let’s see what makes them critical because we often use the word critical and we are thinking that it means that we don’t have enough of that. Critical in the context of critical and discussion refers to the idea that it’s significantly important for economy. It plays a critical role in economy, in innovation, in development, in research. And on the other hand, On the other hand, there is a risk of supply disruption. So when a product, in this case, when a mineral or raw material meets these two criteria, importance in economy and facing risk of disruption, we categorize it under critical minerals, or in this case, critical materials. And it’s a dynamic term. It varies between different countries. It varies between U.S. and the EU, for instance. But generally, most of the critical minerals, which have been considered as critical in the U.S., they are in the same category in the EU, but again, it’s evolving and dynamic. Like salt, some day, some materials that we consider critical these days, they may not be critical at all. But why they are so important for us? I try to address it through clean tech and net zero innovation, because they have lots of application. They are essential for kind of different technologies. But with respect to clean tech’s mineral appetite, I have to say that renewables, for instance, they are quite mineral-intensive industries. For instance, a solar farm embeds about 5.5 metric tons of copper per megawatt of capacity. Onshore wind, on average, needs about four ton of copper per megawatt, for offshore wind is 9.5 ton of copper per megawatt, because of line subsidies cable. An electric vehicle needs six times more mineral mass compared to a petrol car. All of these suggest that we need more and more of these minerals, especially as the nature of the economy is evolving and moves towards net zero or 2050. a 50 net zero economy. And for instance, in the case of the EU, we expect that in terms of lithium, we expect that the EU needs for lithium to increase more than 20 times compared to now in the next 25 years by 2050. As colleagues mentioned, the issue is Europe’s exposure. China defines roughly 60% of the world’s lithium and close to 90% of rare earth elements. So recent export controls, pandemic shutdowns, geopolitical constraints and challenges that we are facing shows that how quickly a single button can install factories across Europe. That was the reason behind EU critical raw materials that colleagues explained with clear targets to achieve. I’ll briefly recap on them to achieve 10% of strategic raw materials extracted inside EU, 40% processed within EU, 25% resulted from EU-based streams and no more than 65% depending on any external supply. These are very tricky and challenging targets and very ambitious to achieve. And they are trying to achieve them through, I provide one tangible example towards the end of my talk, EU tries to achieve these goals by designating strategic projects, faster permits, EU-wide coordination board and make the entire process more efficient. The tangible example that I would like to provide is Kriber project, a flagship lithium project on the west coast of Finland. It aims to become the first European producer of battery grade lithium hydroxide. made entirely from its own ore. It’s located in the west coast of Finland, it’s close to European battery consumers and customers mines are inland and refinery sits in an existing coastal industrial part. It’s private partnership mostly and can provide enough ore for 16 years of continuous output. It means that the plant production is about 15,000 tons of lithium hydroxide per year roughly for 300,000 electric cars for battery of EVs and this is just, I cannot say it’s a drop in the ocean but it shows a tangible example because of the process of process of issuing permit for starting this project because we had a permitting shortcut the licenses were approved in 2022, the construction began in 2023 when we expect production in early 2026. Roughly accelerated much faster efficient process compared to similar projects and of course issuing finance etc shows another coordination and need for and actually willingness to support such projects across the EU and of course by CRMA this project has been designated as a strategic project under the CRMA rule. It’s important because it hits every pillar. It’s EU mining, it’s EU refining, it’s strict ESG and it has innovative finance and it provides a clear template for other European raw materials projects. that we expect to achieve in the coming years. I’ll finish in less than a minute. Just I want to say that this is good. We can do that, but it’s not enough. Of course, it’s a good example that we can replicate across Europe. But still, the EU depends on many countries and needs to sign agreements with different partners to make sure that they diversify supply. I was in Central Asia when the head of the EU signed a strategic agreement with Central Asian countries for sustainable extraction of critical minerals in Central Asia last April. And this needs to happen with Australia, with some countries in the Middle East, with Canada, etc. Our goal is, the goal of this process, the goal of this act, is to make sure that Europe keeps competitive advantage, doesn’t face unpleasant surprises in terms of critical mineral supply. We don’t know for how long lithium, cobalt, etc. will remain critical and when the story of salt repeats itself for these materials. But for the time being, we need to use this example of lithium hydroxide mine in Finland as a model to replicate. We need to diversify our resources and innovate in a way that our dependency on critical minerals to move towards minimum. Thank you very much.

Claire Patzig: Thank you. All right, thank you so much for the first input. You all now have the chance to sort of share your first ideas, inputs or questions if you want to. Thank you. I might simply start and share first question. What do you think regarding the four benchmarks of the CRMA? Do you think that any of them are realistic to 2030?

Hamid Pouran: Some of them are realistic in terms of, for example, 65% dependency on external supplier. That’s very challenging to achieve within the next five years. But 25% resides from EU races streams. It’s rather feasible. And 40% process within the EU is still feasible. It depends on political will. In terms of technology, it’s there. Technology is not, we don’t need breakthrough technology. We need political will and investment. If these two elements are there, it could be achieved. That’s my impression.

Claire Patzig: I heard a lot of criticism regarding the 40% of processing within the EU itself. Do you think that’s useful or that it’s more useful to have the processing happening within the same countries where the mining is happening?

Hamid Pouran: The risk here is the supply. So in terms of like a goodwill or showing partnership, again, I’m referring to recent experience that I had. I was in Central Asia and attended the EU Central Asia leaders’ talk on critical minerals. And at that meeting, head of EU committed not only extracting this, but processing and refining in a sustainable manner in Central Asia and then exporting the product. However, the issue is supply disruption. So many people may oppose that from an environmental point of view or perhaps even from a financial point of view. But I believe in terms of a strategic point of view, it can be justified.

Claire Patzig: All right, thank you so much. And I think with that, I will head over to our second speaker, just to introduce him as well shortly. Cruz Glynka, he is a senior fellow at the Humanity in Action. And this is sort of how we got to know each other, that he advocates for a just transition. And that’s also what he will focus on, I think, now sort of highlighting the social and environmental dimension of the Critical Raw Materials Act and Europe’s role in that.

Cruz Glynka: Hello, can you hear me?

Claire Patzig: We can hear you fine. Thank you.

Cruz Glynka: OK, that’s good. Hi, everyone. So it’s a really interesting topic, thinking about critical minerals, because you have to think of critical to who. And as we’ve been pointed out, there is some difference in of what criticality means to different regions. So, for instance, the US has some overlaps with Europe, but they are different. But one thing you’ll notice is that the criticality of minerals isn’t to the regions that most need this and who often have energy systems which are unreliable and don’t support their needs. We are creating strategic partnerships with countries to reduce dependencies on countries and disruptions, which is really important and I understand the reasons for that. behind this, increasingly the language of environmental progress is turning into security and you’ll see that more recently there’s this attachment energy and security in a way that hasn’t been as strong in previous generations and with this comes really some big challenges and ethical concerns because when you’re stating that this is essential for your progress then it means that you may be willing to forgo certain ethical considerations and this is a striking scenario in Africa so when we look at DRC which has been very popular in the news over the last few years we see that the critical minerals there namely cobalt is causing numerous issues to the region and destabilising it. What’s tricky about that situation and it was slightly touched on before with how despite the fact you have certain countries which are where the minerals are being mined there’s other countries which are actually processing it so for instance Glynka if you’re thinking in Europe and because of this it means that we go through very tricky due diligence to try and track where these minerals are being processed. In many cases these minerals may be causing environmental degradation, it may be causing human insecurity and it’s very challenging for us to figure out where these things are happening. However there are clear instances where we know where it’s happening and for instance an example is where the UN says minerals are being taken out from the DRC and going through via Rwanda. Interestingly the EU has recently signed a MOU with Rwanda for Minerals. So it brings to question, what are we trying to strive for? And if we’re trying to create a truly sustainable world, how can we create a sustainable world that also doesn’t take into consideration the social element? Not only is it a question of ethics, but it’s also a question of if you support countries which are destabilised, you put yourself in a vulnerable position. And as we said before, showing up that 65% is going to be a challenge for the EU. And so making sure that at the heart of the policy is that there’s a real consideration of those ethical challenges is really important. It’s really good to see that the EU is trying to unify the position of Europe somewhat. And that’s really good. At the moment, you do have a bit of a unfair situation where one country may have lower standards for due diligence than another country. And so I think this is going to be really important question in the coming years of how do we make sure that all these countries are abiding by the same ethics, the same due diligence and ensuring that when we go into a place, this is an agreement that is mutually beneficial to both countries. There’s so many examples where the things, the practices that we do overseas, we wouldn’t accept in Europe. And as we go into a kind of new. Multipolar order in the world, it becomes more and more important to reaffirm what our values are as we trade with other people, because increasingly Europe is going to find that they’re going to have more pressures, especially as we’re seeing countries doing trade deals on strategic mineral deals. It’s going to be increasingly difficult to. still progress with the ambition that they want with the ethics, but if they don’t, it undermines a lot of the values that you often hear in Europe about what we’re striving for and how we’re a democratic region and that we want to support democracies if in actual fact we support dictators and so forth. So this is the kind of questions that I wanted to bring forward. I think it’s an important question that is often an uncomfortable question, often an uncomfortable topic that doesn’t really like to be discussed amongst officials or industry leaders, but they all acknowledge that it is a challenge and they all want to do something in many cases. But I think the due diligence and the dynamic supply chains allow us to have a so-called acceptance of what we’re doing, even though we know we’re doing bad. So that’s the main points that I want to bring to you and I’m interested in any comments or questions you may have. Thank you.

Claire Patzig: Thank you so much for your input. Are there any questions from the floor? Hi, Cruz.

Audience: Hi. Hi. Thank you very much for your input. Just really quick, if we’re looking at the implementation of the EU Minerals Act, Critical Raw Materials Act, do you have any concrete ideas what could actually be implemented that would consider itself with the social dimension? Do you have any ideas on that?

Cruz Glynka: Yeah, so I have some ideas. With the due diligence, it’s really tricky in terms of cost, so actually tracking all the minerals, because all it takes is for one set of minerals to be combined with another set of minerals, so then suddenly you’ve got something unethical. We do have, for instance, in Europe, if you were to trade, or if you’re trading between, not so much Europe, but if you’re trading between, say, the UK and Europe, EU, then we have tags that you have to make sure that they haven’t been altered with, and we can track those vehicles. The problem here is that the cost incentive isn’t really there for most people. People are quite content with having it like this, especially if you have to compete with other countries. So stuff like processing, there’s going to be a question of how do we keep up the cost compared to China and make sure that if we’re producing goods which use minerals that are processed in the EU, how does that remain competitive on a global stage? The means we could do it, it’s whether we actually want to do it, if you get what I mean.

Audience: A short question about actually tracking the supply chains. Do you think there will be technical tools provided, for example, by the European Union, looking at, for example, something like GAIA-X, or will it have to come from the private sector? For example, in automotive, they are working at Catena-X at the moment. Where does the responsibility lie with that?

Cruz Glynka: Yeah, so I think the responsibility should lie with the industry, and most large organizations will have an area who’s dedicated, having spoken to a few people in industry, automotive industry, there’s sections of their teams that go out to check the mineral sites and stuff like this. However, there’s obviously the challenge. If you get an audit on a mineral site, I can make it look really good for a few days. And then, you know, most of the other time, it’s not a good situation. So I think the importance will come down on industry. I also think if this becomes more of a topical issue, particularly among the younger generation, who often call for like just transitions, then it puts more pressure down with pressure on industry. And in this space, I also think the EU has a critical role in being the regulator in many cases and supporting these efforts so that the industries that do want to do these practices aren’t undercut by industries that don’t want to do these practices. It makes it very challenging for you to say, I want to compete in the EU, but my competitor is not gonna do the same practices which I’m gonna uphold to, and therefore I’m gonna be less profitable and less competitive in that environment. So I think the position will come from the industry, but it will be supported by regulation from the EU.

Claire Patzig: Thank you so much. Dr. Pouran, feel free to add on to any question or any, yeah.

Hamid Pouran: Yes, if you don’t mind, just echo what the colleague said. In terms of implementing like ethics or sustainability regulations, to my understanding, industries are driven by commercial interests and shareholders’ interests as well. If they’re left to themselves, they won’t implement any rules or regulations. We need to have legislations by EU, a strict monitoring process in place, and this encourages companies to implement those regulations. Developing, because for carbon emissions, new regulations are being developed, being able to track carbon just as an analogy, embedded carbon, etc. Something like that, from those experiences, we can learn to understand if the source of critical minerals or materials is sustainable or not. Or even if you go to a food shop or buy some product, you see this logo of Fairtrade. So there is a process that we can learn from the existing products that we import in Europe and UK from other countries, to at least to the best of our ability and possibility to make sure that they are fair and sustainable. However, for critical minerals, it’s emerging, it’s becoming more important. We have had the US-Ukraine deal. It’s expected that President Trump signed a deal on critical minerals with the Saudi during his visit and Middle East. So I think in a couple of years, we hear a lot more about critical minerals, and this may lead to new legislation. However, again, going back, if we leave companies or industries to themselves, they’re not going to implement any ESG regulations. Thank you.

Cruz Glynka: And could I just come back to that? It’s really important in terms of the mineral deals that are being struck with different countries. And one thing that you can do, and it has been done on like outside of the European Union, Hamid has spoken about the fair trade and attaching it to critical minerals in the same way. We’ve done this, we’ve conceptualized certain minerals as being bad. When I was younger, I rarely remember blood diamonds and the association of blood diamonds and how horrific it was. Lots of regulations came in to curb it. I’m not saying that’s a perfect industry, but there was a concerted effort to change that. The same kind of thoughts of what happens in fair trade with the blood diamonds or dolphin-free tuna, all of these same ideas can also be implemented. However, there is risk that certification allows for justification of industries which aren’t actually doing good practice. This is where I’d just have a bit of caution with just over-marking, because there’s still places where maybe they stick on a fair trade, and it’s not actually as good as we would want, or it doesn’t uphold the standards that we would want. So just pushing and keeping pushing. I agree with Hamid. If your shareholders suddenly say, we care about this issue, then it suddenly is on the discussion table when they’re having their meetings. Then there’s a bit of more concerted effort to change these things. That’s what I’ve seen through a lot of these industries, where they will say, okay, some of our shareholders are coming to us and saying, these are the challenges that we care about, and what are you doing to change them? So it’s really a combination of, as has been discussed, government. but then also people, and just showing that interest in this topic. And as it grows, it will become more important.

Marilia Maciel: Thank you. My name is Marilia Maciel. I’m Director for Digital Trade and Economic Security at Diplo. First of all, I would like to thank the speakers, because I think what you shared, both of you, is quite complimentary. And I came to this session to learn more about this topic, and I certainly did. Let me just perhaps pose a follow-up question to Cruz on something that you said, that agreements in this area need to be beneficial for both sides. And I just remembered sitting in a session in Brussels a month ago about this topic, and we were discussing with some former Commission staff, and they were explaining Europe’s positions and how everything should be guided by these high-level moral standards, environmental sustainability. But at the same time, in the next session, we saw another person that used to work for the Commission, saying that now competitiveness is everything, and if we need to sacrifice a few things in order to remain competitive, we will. And it seems like there is a distinction there that you have already identified. But at the same time, when I speak to colleagues who are researching on this topic in Latin America, they also point to the fact that it is important to bring benefit to both sides. But what they explain to me is that benefit should be attached, for example, to trying to mitigate negative environmental effects. So if a country wants to buy rare earth minerals, it should also invest in technology that would make sure that this extraction would be the least endangering to the environmental environment possible, and would also help these countries in terms of establishing trade agreements that would help them move upwards in terms of the technology value chain. They don’t want to be providers of rare earth minerals or only that forever, right? They want to move up. and also be providers of technology. So how do you see this mutual gain? What do you mean exactly from your perspective?

Cruz Glynka: Thank you. So it’s great that you bring up Latin America and the kind of making sure that you’re being compensated well. There’s a classic example that I can think of in Peru where the water supply has been disrupted as a result of mining of critical minerals. And so these are the kind of things that, okay, if you’re going to do some of these things, then these areas need to be adequately compensated. Now the challenge comes to who gets the compensation? I guess that’s where it gets really difficult. We need to have holistic kind of consultative processes with the community to ensure that people are all engaged and that they’re given space to actually have dialogue. Because if you just strike a deal with a leader that’s in the region, but that leader doesn’t necessarily represent the people at large and is not affected by the consequences of the environmental degradation, then you haven’t really achieved what you want. These are more timely processes and require more insight and knowledge into the communities. But these are tangible things that we can do to have better consultative processes. And this is something that with time, we do learn that it’s very important to do that. Also, in terms of a sustainability thing, and just ensuring that you have long-term longevity in that region of being able to continue that trade, this helps you. Because the worst thing you can have is a unsettled population that’s there that feels that they aren’t receiving the benefits of society. And they see their society being effectively pillaged for its resources while they live in poverty, which is just going to cause tension. Which, when there’s tension… this is when we have that challenge of that how do we maintain that 65% how do we stay in that 65% range when suddenly one of the critical strategic partners we had is no longer giving us minerals so we have to go to this other country and now we’re over that 65% and now we’re highly dependent on another region which is also potentially not stable so this is the kind of like how I’d engage those communities and making sure that they connected just through really good consultative processes and not just as a tick box mechanism.

Hamid Pouran: If I may I’d like to add a couple of points quickly. Unfortunately we are dealing with a challenging world as you know. We have some desirable criteria like sustainability etc. We have some essential criteria and unfortunately essential criteria in terms of being competitive in the world override every other rule. EU is part of the world and there is competition between EU, US, China etc. India and other emerging powers so if there is a limited supply if there is a rare supply and you want to have a sweet deal with those who have those who are in charge of that perhaps securing the deal is your first priority rather than making sure that everything is perfectly ethical sustainable long term and benefits the community. Unless you are under pressure from your own public because of public awareness that there is a barrier that prevents not morally in terms of repercussions and political impact then you avoid signing that deal. bring this fact to the attention that we have, or the EU has, some very strong competitive partners across the world. There is limited supply, there is competition for that supply, and sometimes you need to step back from your ideals and be more pragmatic. Is it good? I don’t think so. But is it essential? I’m afraid sometimes you don’t have no other choice.

Audience: Thank you to both speakers. I have quite a generic question, as I admit that today is the first time I hear of the Critical Raw Materials Act. I wanted to ask whether the Act itself already has provisions for fundamental rights and environmental safeguards, such as impact assessments, or whether this is something that will be discussed and has the possibility to be included at a later stage. Sorry, this was not clear to me.

Hamid Pouran: To my understanding, it does, and it is included. A sustainable extraction and refining process has been considered, and the lithium hydroxide example in Finland is following the regulations, and that’s why it’s a successful example. Extraction, processing, meeting the highest environmental standard. So, going back to colleagues’ questions and comments, when things happen in the EU, in terms of sustainability, you are much more flexible, and you can achieve the highest standard. So, just going back to your question, yes. These are all part of the Act. Thank you.

Cruz Glynka: Yeah, I just wanted to add to that. Yeah, it’s a part of the Act. It’s something that’s important. However, some of the ways of how they’re going to actually achieve it is a bit vague. So they recognize the importance of it, but it’s quite vague. And there is a lot of conversations that are going on within the EU about how to achieve it and still remain competitive, as has been mentioned before. Because increasingly, we’re seeing the language across the world change to more of this kind of competitive edge and security conversation. And so then it’s a bit more of a challenge of like, how do you maintain it amongst officials, but there is a conversation about this, and it is in the Critical Material Act.

Claire Patzig: Just before the last question, I would add on that. So for those project partners, they have lots of responsibility, for example, to also make sure of those aspects. And that can mean that depending on how those processes go, it’s not as binding as we maybe would like to see those aspects in the Act. But now to the last question.

Audience: Yes, thank you. My question was more on the framework at which we should treat raw materials. So my question was whether we should critical raw materials be governed through more of a global framework, such as the United Nations, or do like geopolitical realities and also national interests that play a role, make a continental approach more viable? But what if you could make like an ideal scenario, in your view of the speakers, what is the most realistic, but also effective framework for governing these critical raw materials? Would that be more of a global system or would it be more of a continental system?

Cruz Glynka: So yeah, that’s a really good question. And there is like a framework actually within the OECD, which has a lot more countries, I think 40 plus countries are within the OECD. And all of the high economic countries are represented in the OECD. And so this is a very important place where this could actually be implemented, because it allows that coordination between different countries. And it is predominantly where the critical, the strategic critical mineral policies are coming from, is largely wealthy countries. There’s like a few countries that are lower economic regions, which are represented, but by and large, we’re thinking of the Chinas, we’re thinking of the Americas, we’re thinking of the US, we’re thinking of the UK. These are the countries that are all saying that they have this position. And the OECD has a guidance, which has been coordinated amongst all the countries to set out the position. However, it’s not like a binding agreement. So this is where you see the divergence. And increasingly, we’re finding we’re in a bit of a multipolar order. And so various countries are competing for their own interests. Because they want to shore up their energy security, they want to secure up their military security, they want to secure up their technological advance. And so then it’s really hard to coordinate countries when they have competing interests against each other. So that’s the challenge. But ideally, it would be at that kind of international level, the more partners you can get in, the better and the stronger the agreements you can have. competitiveness amongst them makes that very challenging?

Hamid Pouran: Yeah, if I may, I think that’s a very important question and difficult to answer. If we look at history and example of existing programs from OPEC to the International Atomic Agency, in the past when coordination between all rich countries, OPEC was necessary, they were coordinating each other to have the market in control because their interest was controlling the market and have the maximum financial outcome, but no one else could have like a force them to do something. This is the same for international atomic energy or other UN entities. Yes, for some for UN sanctions or regulations, they are encouraged to work with each other, but if someone doesn’t want to, unless you implement force or it would be really extremely challenging to convince them. So I wouldn’t think at this stage or soon we will have some global body. However, there are global initiatives for sustainable extraction of critical minerals and providing guidelines. For example, UN Industrial Development Organization, UNIDO, launched Global Alliance for Responsible Green Minerals to promote sustainable mining practices. So in terms of technology development, sharing best practices, sharing in terms of minimizing environmental impacts and maximizing the benefits for the environment, for the community and longer development, yes, UNIDO, UN perhaps, or other entities could have their activities. You see that Saudi Arabia or each country exporting about 10 million barrels of oil every day has this annual critical minerals event, which brings every industry together. It’s like a Davos, but it’s focused on critical minerals. So people try to secure, going back to your question, I’ll finish in a second. Going back to your questions, in terms of sustainability, in terms of general regulations, there could be collaboration and framework as it happens on the UN institution, including UNIDO, especially UNIDO, but in terms of securing supply, forcing countries to follow other countries’ interests, it’s highly unlikely. That’s my understanding. And thanks for the question again.

Constance Weise: Okay. So let’s see. So what I captured is the following. Message one, critical mineral deposits are limited and geographically scattered. While most refining capacity is concentrated in China, Europe faces acute supply chain vulnerability. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act seeks to mitigate this risk through its 2030 targets. 10% domestic extraction, 40% EU processing, 25% recycling and a cap of 65% of reliance on any single external supplier. This is demonstrated in practice by Finland’s Raw Materials Project, which combines local mining, European refining, green financing and strict ESG standards into a replicable model for securing strategic raw material supply. While this is a good example to be replicated in Europe, the European Union depends on its member countries signing an agreement with many partners to ensure a supply diversification. Shall I continue or did you want to discuss this message one first? I think you can continue already. A message to what I captured is that there is a difference in what criticality means in different regions. Yet mostly it is not critical to the countries that are most in need. With the attachment to energy and security come ethical concerns. For example, in DRC, cobalt is causing issues to the region and is destabilizing it, including environmental degradation and human insecurity. We thus need to create a sustainable world that takes into account the social element whereby countries all abide by the same ethical due diligence. In order to have better consultative and holistic processes with the community, we need to ensure that all people are engaged and consulted. I think I need to look at this one more time, but I’ll read out to you what I have now. There is limited supply and great competition for this supply, not only within the EU. As it relates to the EU, it needs to have a strict monitoring process in place that encourages companies to implement the regulations. Energy development sharing, best practices of minimizing environmental impacts and maximizing the benefits for the environment and the community. The last sentence is still a bit raw. So maybe we can look at everything else first.

Claire Patzig: So it seems to me like in the room, people do not really want to add something to those three messages. Thank you so much for noting all of that down. I mean, we also have a couple of days left to maybe add some little details, I guess. But do our speakers want to add or change something specifically?

Hamid Pouran: It seems fine to me. Thanks very much.

Cruz Glynka: Likewise, I’m content with it.

Claire Patzig: All right. Thank you so much. And thank you, everyone who was asking questions, who was engaged in the topic and hopefully keeps that in mind whenever you are going to buy your next laptop or car or whatsoever, that all of that is happening in the background until you have your product in your hand. And again, thank you so much to both of our speakers for sharing their thoughts and answering all those questions. And with that, I think it’s a wrap for the day. And we can now all enjoy either some food or just the evening or some networking. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye.

Retrieved from "https://eurodigwiki.org/mw/index.php?title=Between_Green_Ambitions_and_Geopolitical_Realities:_EU’s_Critical_Raw_Materials_Act_–_WS_09_2025&oldid=27204"