Enhancing Regional Mining Ecosystems in the European Union

1. Assessment and recommendations

Assessment

A renewed focus on mineral raw materials for European competitiveness

In a global context of trade disruptions and growing national self-sufficiency priorities in industrial and energy value chains, the European Union (EU) has pivoted its strategic focus toward securing access to critical mineral raw materials. By reducing dependence on non-EU sources of primary and secondary raw materials, it aims to domestically supply the technologies needed to phase out fossil fuels and meet climate targets.

This new strategic vision on minerals emerges against the backdrop of decades of limited EU policy support for domestic mining operations, which prioritised instead resource diplomacy, trade, research and secondary materials (EC, 2008[1]). This resulted in challenging conditions for mining projects, including complex regulatory frameworks and uncoordinated support for innovation and infrastructure for the sector. Unclear political backing towards mining stifled public debate on modern mining practices and company–community relations, leaving perceptions rooted in past environmental and social impacts unaddressed.

The EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) of 2024 (EC, 2024[2]) marks a significant shift in EU policy by establishing a framework to incentivise mining operations within the Union, streamline regulatory and permitting processes, foster innovation and promote circular economy practices in the mineral raw materials sector. With this policy support, by 2030 the CRMA aims to more than triple EU consumption of strategic minerals from domestic extraction and achieve at least 40% of the EU’s annual consumption from domestic processing and 25 % from recycling sources. To this end, the European Commission identifies technically feasible strategic projects that will benefit from more efficient approval processes and access to finance, with permitting for extraction projects not exceeding 27 months and for other projects not exceeding 15 months. This Act is part of the EU Green Deal Industrial Plan, which seeks to rebuild EU industrial competitiveness and meet climate goals.

To make this renewed EU support for mineral-related projects sustainable and responsible in time, the EU and member countries need to also ensure that projects lead to greater well-being for host communities and minimise environmental impacts. Mineral-related projects inherently generate an environmental footprint, but amid a shifting geopolitical context and the need to phase out fossil fuels, the EU has the opportunity to keep leading the path in balancing a more reliable mineral sourcing with environmental conservation and greater community well-being. Subnational conditions and the actions of local actors are crucial to attain these multiple goals.

EU regions are key actors in supporting the EU goals of mineral self-sufficiency

With mineral deposits and know-how geographically concentrated in specific areas of Europe, regions play a pivotal role in shaping the competitiveness of the mining sector and ensuring better outcomes for host communities and the environment. While national governments establish overarching strategies, goals and regulatory frameworks for mining activities, subnational governments hold critical responsibilities for the on-the-ground implementation of mining projects. These responsibilities include improving to labour markets, innovation ecosystems and infrastructure for projects, and aligning mining activities with community local business expectations and safeguarding local environmental assets.

Subnational governments and actors are the best placed to identify the needs and assets of local economies to benefit from the mining value chain, create new growth opportunities locally and synergies with other EU industrial ecosystems and support an efficient implementation of mining projects. Key roles of subnational governments to help the European Union attain the objectives of the CRMA include:

• Creating an enabling environment for competitive and responsible mining. Regional authorities and institutions have the capacity to improve the local labour and skills market to align with industry needs, support an innovative regional environment to increase industrial competitiveness and environmental sustainability, and enhance regional infrastructure to reduce transport and energy cost. Regions can also enhance their competencies in international branding to attract mining investment and facilitate landing of new companies as well as bridging of information gaps regarding available funding support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

• Strengthening the relationship between mining and communities through improved benefits and communication. Given their proximity to communities, regional authorities are uniquely positioned to bridge dialogue among mining companies, experts and local stakeholders. Effective community engagement and communication is instrumental in mitigating social resistance to mining activities and building trust among stakeholders. Regions can facilitate public consultations, disseminate transparent information about mining projects and address community concerns to strengthen social acceptance and promote mutually beneficial outcomes.

• Supporting transparent and efficient permitting processes with community participation. Subnational governments also have significant responsibilities in the mining permitting process, which directly influences the attractiveness of EU mining jurisdictions. Clear and coherent land-use plans, including mineral resources areas for exploration and extraction, can reduce delays and uncertainty for mining companies. Regional authorities can facilitate access to information about permitting requirements and provide guidance to companies navigating subnational regulatory processes, ultimately improving the competitiveness of EU mining regions.

These roles are essential for fostering a balanced approach that combines resource extraction with community development and environmental stewardship.

The ten EU mining regions analysed hold diverse assets throughout the EU mineral value chain.

The ten regions examined in this study reflect the diversity of EU mining ecosystems, spanning five countries: Finland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. All are classified as rural regions under the OECD territorial framework. Several cover vast land areas – Alentejo and Lapland are the largest regions in their respective countries, each accounting for roughly one-third of national territory, while Andalusia is Spain’s second-largest region. Some, like Kainuu and Lapland, are also among the least-populated regions in the OECD.

Despite their differences in demographic, economic and environmental characteristics, these regions share several common strengths and challenges when compared to the average of OECD mining regions (Figure 1.1).1 They generate lower carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions per unit of electricity, exhibit slightly lower unemployment rates and demonstrate greater economic diversification than the OECD Mining Regions Benchmark. On the other hand, they face steeper population decline, a lower share of youth in the workforce and slightly lower gross domestic product (GDP) per capita levels than the benchmark. The next section explores in greater detail the assets and challenges of these regions as mining ecosystems.

Figure 1.1. Well-being indicators of ten EU mining regions relative to the OECD Mining Regions Benchmark

Note: A number above 100 indicates better performance relative to the average of OECD mining regions. The region with the highest value is represented by the blue circle, and the lowest by the yellow circle. The dark grey rhombus represents the median of the 10 EU regions. Population 2022 refers to population growth during 2001-22; the other variables reflect the latest available value in the indicated year. The next chapter provides further explanation of the methodology and variables used in this figure.

Source: OECD (2025[3]), Regions, Cities and Local Statistics, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/regions-cities-and-local-statistics.html.

The ten EU regions are top EU players across different phases of the mining value chain

The ten regions studied are top EU players across different phases of the mining value chain (Table 1.1). They have the know-how and potential to discover new mining deposits, valorise mining waste and the deposits contained in legacy mines, as well as transform minerals with environmentally sustainable practices. They can also provide the expertise and industrial base to increase resource efficiency and advance circular economy practices. If well managed, synergies among these regional mining ecosystems can help transform and modernise the European Union’s mining sector based on clean technologies and improved resource efficiency.

Table 1.1. Main assets of the ten EU mining regions

Asset	Description	Example
Geological endowment	Key producers of critical minerals for the European Union	Andalusia: Largest EU producer of gypsum and strontium and second-largest producer of copper Central Greece: Largest EU producer of bauxite Kainuu: The European Union’s largest nickel mine Centro: Second-largest EU producer of tungsten and largest producer of lithium (for ceramic sector) Alentejo: Sixth EU producer of copper
	Important producer of mineral raw materials	Lapland: Largest EU producer of gold and only producer of chromium Centro: Largest producer of dimensions stones in Portugal Alentejo and Örebro: Key EU producers of zinc Alentejo and Andalusia: Largest marble producers in Portugal and Spain respectively
	Large deposits of critical minerals	Tungsten (Centro), lithium (Central Ostrobothnia and Centro), Nickel (Kainuu), Cobalt (Kainuu and North Karelia)
Research and innovation, circular initiatives and global service providers for mining	The European Union’s top educational centres	Oulu Mining School
	Pilot plants for mining processing and tailings management	GTK Mintec in North Karelia
	Headquarters of global service providers	Epiroc in Alentejo and Örebro Fravizel in Centro
	Research centres and networks for the circular economy	CCTV in Centro and Digipolis in Lapland CEMIS in Kainuu Swedish Innovation Örebro
Subnational governance and policies for mining	Regional and municipal mining policies	Regional Mining Strategy of Andalusia 2030 Mining plan of the municipality of Sodankylä, Lapland Kainuu Strategy for Extractive Industries 2025
	Regional co‑ordinating structures for mining	Mining hub in the region of Lapland
	Institutional arrangement to support permitting	Andalusia’s Accelerator Unit to streamline permitting processes
Infrastructure for greater sustainability in mining	Mining regions with 100% supply of renewable energy	Energy produced in northern regions of Finland is 100% renewable (hydro), enabling production of zero‑carbon minerals
	Mining projects investing in decentralised renewable energy projects	Aljustrel in Alentejo Rio Tinto in Andalusia

Among the various strengths, some EU mining regions stand out in terms of low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in comparison to other OECD mining regions. While mining has inherent environmental impacts, EU environmental standards and the high share of renewable energy supply in some countries enable mining operations with a relatively lower environmental footprint than many other mining areas. The average GHG emissions per capita of the EU regions analysed (all except Central Greece) (157 tonnes of CO₂ per capita) is half the average of OECD mining regions (326 tonnes of CO₂ per capita on average). This is explained by the high share of renewable energy supply in some EU regions, which facilitates electrification investments and thus mineral extraction processes with low carbon emissions, such as at Boliden’s nickel mine in Lapland. However, disparities exist within the European Union: while Finnish regions generate almost 100% of their energy from renewables, Andalusia and Greece supply 57-60% of the energy from renewable sources (Agencia Andaluza de la Energia, 2024[4]; IPTO, 2024[5]).

In terms of air pollution, mining industry in these EU regions represents a minor source of total industrial emissions. For example, in Lapland, during 2007-22, mining generated between 0% and 5% of the region’s annual industrial emissions to air, compared to 51-75% coming from the paper and wood production and processing industry (OECD calculations based on reported data in the European Industrial Emissions Portal (2024[6])).

The 10 EU regions feature examples of mining as a driver for rural development and resilience

The historical mining development in these regions has shaped economic, culture and social characteristics of some their communities. The 10 EU regions analysed also feature some examples at the municipal level to leverage mining for local development:

• Town development anchored on mining specialisation. All ten regions have current towns or municipalities that were developed because of a mining project, or even created with that specific purpose, such as the town of Aljustrel and Castro Verde in Alentejo, Rio Tinto in Andalusia, Barroca Grande in Centro and Aspra Spitia in Central Greece.

• Community infrastructure supported by mining companies. Some municipalities have benefitted from partnerships with mining companies to establish sport centres (Boliden’s hockey stadium in Sodankylä), support the construction of museums (Pansaqueira for the museum in Covilha, Centro) or municipal parks (Rio Tinto, Andalusia).

• Cultural ties to mining. Mining workers in Aljustrel, Alentejo, developed traditional singing practices, recognised by and added to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intangible Cultural Heritage List. Local marble companies and the municipality of Vila Viçosa have also collaborated to uncover the historical relevance of marble for the town and apply for UNESCO World Heritage Site status.

• Mining municipalities with higher income than the country average. The municipality of Castro Verde, home to Neves-Corvo Mine, registered the highest average salary in Portugal in 2021 (INE, 2023[7]).

• Rural resilience to demographic decline. The municipalities of Kittilä and Sotkamo have benefitted from tourism and mining sector cohabitation to maintain better population dynamics than their regional average. In a context of population decline in rural areas in Finland, the population of Kittilä increased 7% between 2005 and 2022, above the average decline in Lapland region (-1.9%). Likewise, Sotkamo has experienced a slight population decline of 0.7% between 2017 and 2022, performing better than the average decline of 4.1% in the region of Kainuu. Also, the municipality of Aljustrel in Alentejo has been one the three highest municipalities in Portugal in the fertility and natality rates.

However, these regions face relevant challenges to enable responsible mining projects

The ten EU regions and their municipalities with mining potential face distinct challenges in facilitating the implementation of responsible mining projects while maximising community benefits and minimising environmental impacts (Table 1.2). Some of these challenges are linked to the rural and remote nature of these areas, while others arise from the inherent environmental externalities of mining, which often generate community opposition and ambiguous political support.

Challenges associated to regional characteristics

Some of these challenges stem from structural characteristics of EU rural areas, as most mining operations take place in municipalities far from large city centres. Key issues include a labour shortage due to an ageing population and lack of community attractiveness due to service delivery cost. The remoteness of some municipalities with mineral potential also implies higher transport and energy infrastructure costs for mining projects and related activities. Also, low population density and small internal markets in those regions affect economics of scale for local business (e.g. capital investments) and the network opportunities for innovation activities. Addressing these challenges require tailored rural related polices.

Beyond these structural issues, mining activities in EU regions face specific challenges that undermine competitiveness and local economic integration. Unclear strategies for mining development in some regional development plans or smart specialisation strategies overlook opportunities out of the sector. There is also inadequate communication within the community and across municipal governments about mining and new projects as well as scattered engagement opportunities in mining decision making. Moreover, regional workforces and students – especially in regional capitals – remain unaware of modern mining opportunities. Regional innovation ecosystems lack unified priorities and long-term partnerships with the mining industry to unlock new growth opportunities and environmental practices.

Cross-cutting challenges at the EU and national levels

These challenges are coupled with cross-cutting issues that are linked to environmental and social externalities of mining, which affect support for project implementation across the European Union. Mining is undoubtedly an industrial activity that inherently generates an environmental footprint, including land-use changes, modification to water resources and terrestrial ecotoxicity. These impacts are especially visible in host communities, with mining waste and water pollution risks being major concerns for civil society. For instance, despite most of the mining waste is non-hazardous (above 95% on average) (according to Eurostat data (2024[8]; 2024[9])), and regulated by EU environmental legislation, in countries with available data like Finland and Sweden, it represents the vast majority of the country’s total waste (76% and 77% in 2022 respectively), with more than half a tonne of waste generated for every tonne of raw material extracted annually.

First, a long-standing misalignment between mineral needs and environmental protection goals across EU government levels has led to unclear policy positions on to the sector’s role in development and attaining climate goals. The sector’s environmental footprint, combined with the union’s historical reliance on non-EU mineral sources, reduced political incentives to support a competitive business environment for domestic mining. As a result, many EU countries lacked updated mineral strategies for years and failed to streamline permitting processes. In countries such as Greece, Portugal, and Spain, the absence of strategic direction also led to underfunding of geological institutions, limiting their ability to provide reliable data on deposits and tailings.

Second, the community perception towards mining and trust in the capacity of institutions to regulate the sector’s environmental impact remain significant barriers to mining development in the European Union. Several factors drive this social resistance, including environmental impacts from past or abandoned mines, communication gaps on mining risks and benefits (e.g. non-economic advantages), and inadequate frameworks for consultation and early engagement in decision making.

Limited government involvement in communication from the early stages of a project has further undermined public perception. For instance, in most EU regions, companies hold the primary responsibility for informing communities and local governments about prospecting and exploration activities. Combined with low public trust in the industry and limited understanding of exploration processes, the absence of government involvement in such practices has contributed to opposition from some municipalities, e.g. in Portugal, to prospecting and exploration projects. Moreover, the absence of proactive government strategies to address polarisation around mining has created space for misinformation and radical opposition to the sector by certain civil society groups.

Table 1.2. Main challenges affecting the ten EU mining regions studied

	Challenge		Description	Example
Regional characteristics	Unclear role of mining in regional development strategies and land-use plans (in some regions)		Some regions with ongoing mineral exploration do not include mining specific strategies in their development plans. A lack of updated national mining strategies has hindered policy co‑ordination for regional strategies (Greece, Portugal and Sweden). There is no mention of the potential synergies of mining with other economic sectors in smart specialisation strategies. Land-use processes do not include identification of mineral potential Mining areas can coincide with nature protected areas, causing conflicts.	In Central Greece, Centro, Örebro or Oulu, regional development policies do not include tasks to link new extractive projects with regional development. Land-use plans in municipal governments block mining with other activities (Centro). Some land-use processes avoid considering mineral potential across the region (Centro, North Karelia, Örebro).
	Limited availability of a qualified and technical mining workforce		Ageing and population decline affect labour supply. There is a mismatch between educational supply and industry demand, for example with education supply far from municipalities interested in mining. Low job attractiveness – especially among youth and women – stems from negative perceptions of the sector, limited awareness of modern mining careers and unclear pathways between vocational and professional education. There is a lack of attractiveness for workers and families in rural municipalities with mining potential, given the cost of housing or childcare support.	The 10 regions studied reported, on average, a greater population decline (-6%, 2005-22) than the OECD regional average (+11%) and the OECD Mining Regions Benchmark (+22%). The ten EU mining regions exhibit a higher level of skills mismatch, with 20.6% of workers in roles that do not fully utilise their skills, above the OECD average (18.5%). In Andalusia and Central Greece, the concentration of training supply in main cities limits access to people who live in municipalities with a mining culture or expecting new projects.
	Gaps in connecting local businesses with mining value chains and research community for advancing innovation and circularity and research community		Barriers to economies scale and networks among companies are due to low density and sparsity of some areas, hampering local development and eco-innovation. Information gaps hinder the delivery of programmes and funding support to entrepreneurs and SMEs in the mining value chain.	Alentejo and Lapland are the least-densely populated regions in their countries. EU funds for innovation in mining are not fully utilised by local entrepreneurs. Partnerships to support the circular economy are not scaled up.
	High costs for energy and transport infrastructure and limited forward-looking planning for mining infrastructure		Remote mining regions often lack well-developed transport and logistics networks (e.g. roads, railways and ports), increasing transport costs for raw materials and waste. Social conflicts can arise with local communities and industries that compete for infrastructure use. High energy costs due to reliance on fossil fuels, coupled with challenges in deploying renewable energy infrastructure, make it difficult for mining projects to valorise byproducts and mining waste.	Many mining projects, such as those in Alentejo, Central Ostrobothnia and Lapland, rely on road infrastructure, due to a lack of railways connecting to ports. This can lead to conflicts with local communities over increased truck traffic, noise and wear on roads near towns. In Central Greece and North Karelia, mining companies identified high energy costs as a key barrier to economically valorising mining waste.
Cross-cutting challenges across the European Union		Gaps in communication and local stakeholders’ participation regarding mining decision making	The historic environmental impacts of mining hamper communities’ trust in companies and governments to protect ecosystems. There is a lack of communication on the benefits of mining for development, including economic, infrastructure and social benefits in some municipalities. There is a lack of effective communication on the environmental impacts of mining. There are gaps in ensuring involvement of communities in regional and national decision making linked to mining, including when it affects their nature protected areas. Clear consultation processes with local communities, including standardisation of local-benefit agreements, are limited.	Abandoned tailings, quarries, and mines (e.g. Central Greece) could be rehabilitated. The mining rehabilitation process needs to be further communicated (Andalusia, Centro). The municipality of Pampilhosa da Serra in Centro blocked a lithium exploration project, highlighting poor communication from the national government-side and lack of involvement in the initial decision process. Local environmental impacts of mining are not always well understood by and communicated to local communities.
		Lengthy and unpredictable permitting process	Permitting procedures, especially for environmental permits, are complex, due to different layers of approval, competent authorities being involved and different pieces of legislation affecting permitting procedures. Technical and staff challenges affect the processing of permits and appeals for mining projects. There are communication and guidance difficulties in navigating and understanding the process.	Different environmental permits are given by different competent authorities. Mining projects are subject to several environmental laws with requirements for environmental permits (e.g. environmental impact assessments [EIAS], nature protection regulations, industrial emissions and extractive waste legislation). There are nationwide problems for which countries are reforming permitting processes and adopting strategies to create one-stop shops.
		Lack of reliable data on mineral deposits and mining waste as well as on regional environmental impacts	There is a lack of proper mapping of potential deposits and characterisation of minerals available in tailings. Regional environmental impacts are not well understood (there is a lack of systematic data collection and reporting).	Geological institutes (Greece, Spain) do not have sufficient resources or mandate to extend mining exploration, attract new companies or involve themselves in innovation projects. While relatively good comparable data on mining waste exist at a country level, aggregated waste data at a subnational level that are comparable across countries are not systematically reported.

A placed-based approach to enhance EU regional mining ecosystems working towards EU goals

Improving the regional conditions to implement mining projects and leverage the sector for sustainable rural development requires a coherent and placed-based approach to focus on addressing the challenges and harness the assets of the regional ecosystems. This tailored approach can enable competitive and sustainable mining projects, while equipping communities in view of obtaining long-term development benefits from these projects. There are five enabling factors identified as critical to enhance regional ecosystems for mining (Figure 1.2):

• subnational policy frameworks on mining.

• regional mining governance to support community participation, the permitting process and environmental monitoring.

• local labour markets for the mining value chain.

• regional innovation ecosystems for circularity and reduced environmental impacts.

• regional energy and transport infrastructure for competitive projects.

Figure 1.2. Enabling conditions to enhance EU regional ecosystems for responsible mining

Subnational policy framework on mining

EU mining regions have different approaches to include mining in their set of regional policies. Some regions like Andalusia and Kainuu have dedicated regional mining strategies with a broader view of the sector and its role in the development of the region. Others like Alentejo, Central Ostrobothnia, Centro, Lapland and North Karelia have prioritised specific areas of the mining value chain, mainly the circular economy and innovation, and integrate them into their smart specialisation strategy.

Despite the focus on mining in different policy documents across the regions, the link between mining operations with regional development priorities is sometimes not clearly defined. Some regional authorities, such as Central Greece, Centro, Örebro and Oulu, do not promote mining as a standalone strategy within their regional policy and do not refer to the potential of new mining projects.

Elusive positions towards mining in regional strategies risk missing out on improving conditions for mining and better managing negative externalities as well as leveraging opportunities to benefit from such projects. In some cases, regions have linked mining to development by utilising mining to support services, technological or innovation projects and education facilities. In other cases, regions have decided to avoid putting mining up front in regional strategies. This is often due to the need to balance political positions and community concerns linked to creating new mines or expanding current ones. For instance, in regions where regional authorities are elected by municipalities, opposition to mining, even from a reduced number of municipalities (like in Centro or North Karelia), can make it politically challenging for regional authorities to reach common views within the overarching regional strategy.

Promoting subnational mining strategies

Regional strategies on mineral raw materials can provide better alignment of mineral-related activities in the local economy and encourage more responsible mining practices. This vision brings powerful tools to agree on shared views for the role of mining across the population, highlighting the potential benefits of the sector and tools to mitigate negative effects. The Regional Mining Strategy of Andalusia 2030 is a leading example of setting long-term goals for the sector in the local economy and defining actions to increase local value‑added and employment linked to this value chain. Central Ostrobothnia’s regional strategy for extractive industries integrates environmental sustainability and circularity, demonstrating how these principles can be mainstreamed into such strategies.

Mining plans at the municipal level can also be instrumental tools to co‑ordinate the impacts of the sector locally. Especially in municipalities with multiple mines or active mining exploration, these plans can clarify mining activities, lifespans and indirect economic and social benefits to the local community. The mining plan of Sodankylä and of some municipalities in Alentejo are a good guide in this matter.

Strengthening ESG mining activities with policy goals

In a context of growing social and political focus on responsible mining practices, environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards have become increasingly relevant for guiding responsible investments and practices, leading many mining companies to adopt ESG programmes and strategies.

Across the ten EU mining regions, mining companies have conducted various ESG‑related programmes, to support economic diversification and local schools or improve community infrastructure, among others. These projects have benefitted local communities to access quality sport facilities, such as Boliden’s hockey stadium in Sodankylä, or funding and capacity support for local businesses and entrepreneurs, such as the diversification programme of Zinkgruvan Mine in Örebro. In Kittilä, Agnico Eagle supported tourism companies during the pandemic period and has partnered with the local government to implement strategies to improve attractiveness of the municipality.

Despite these positive developments, there is significant potential for EU regions to better co‑ordinate ESG activities, aligning them more closely with regional policies to drive local development. For ESG actions to have a lasting impact, a more integrated approach to planning, design and implementation is necessary, one that involves stronger engagement from governments, communities and all relevant stakeholders. Well-co‑ordinated and strategically executed initiatives can create multiplier effects, amplifying their positive impact. By fostering collaboration between regional and local governments, mining companies, service providers and communities – including Indigenous groups where applicable – these efforts can lead to more sustained, long-term benefits.

Regional mining governance to support community participation, the permitting process and environmental monitoring

Implementing the actions needed to enhance the enabling factors in regional mining ecosystems require stronger co‑ordination across levels of government. Given the different governmental roles to facilitate mining, inter-governmental co‑ordination is essential to ensuring social acceptance and community engagement, streamlining regulatory processes, enhancing project and strategy monitoring.

Strengthening local participation and communication on mining through common efforts

Addressing community concerns towards mining and the institutional capacity of governments and companies to mitigate negative environmental externalities is a pressing priority to implement the EU CRMA. To achieve this, co‑ordinated efforts among all levels of government, research institutions and industry are essential to enhance communication and participation across the different phases of mining projects. Given the unrest that mining can produce in parts of the community, governments also need to better communicate the role of the sector in national development and energy transitions as well as partnering with companies to clarify the role of new technologies and practices to reduce environmental footprints.

While national governments play a central role in establishing transparent mechanisms for information flow and participatory decision making, subnational authorities – being closest to communities – are crucial in tailoring engagement strategies to local needs, doing so across two major areas.

• First, enhancing communication strategies requires addressing misconceptions and fostering trust through transparent and inclusive information sharing. This means moving beyond positive narratives to discuss both the opportunities and challenges of mining, providing fact-based information and creating platforms for sustained dialogue within communities and municipal governments. Regions can achieve this through:

  • Helping to implement practical and informed knowledge-exchange programmes, such as school or community workshops with experts and hand-on experiences in mines, as well as inter-municipal fora to exchange experiences. For example, the regional councils of Kainuu and North Karelia initiated a pilot project in spring 2024 to improve communication with mining-related projects, supported by the industry association, aiming to further understand community polarisation with regard to mining and establishing actions to enhance information sharing and transparency.

  • Mapping and communicating through different media channels and their regional websites the outcomes of public monitoring and private mitigation activities. For instance, better communicating the mining rehabilitation efforts of metallic and non-metallic mines is a priority in some regions across Greece, Portugal and Spain.

  • Greater participation in project communications from the exploration phase, accompanying companies’ activity socialisation campaigns in co-operation with national governments and education institutions.

• Second, ensuring that community and local government priorities and concerns are considered in mining projects requires early engagement and participation structures, allowing them to voice their views and monitor project outcomes. To this end, EU regional governments can:

  • Establish multi-actor governance structures to shape mining policies and ensure their implementation and monitoring last beyond political cycles. The recent Action Plan for Critical Minerals of Portugal aims to establish a governing community on mining policy, integrating civil society. Other OECD regions outside the EU have opted for their own regional structures to ensure closer co‑ordination and implementation. For instance, Antofagasta (Chile)’s Mining Regional Strategy 2050 includes a steering committee that prioritises and monitors actions in the strategy, with rotating representatives from civil society councils, Indigenous governments, academic institutions and local governments.

  • Support more standardised mining project consultation processes through common guidelines to companies from the exploration phase. This is needed to ensure meaningful interaction of communities, identify concerns for environmental and cultural protection and promote different benefit-sharing opportunities, including procurement and job opportunities.

  • Enhance community participation in land-use processes to clarify the mineral potential of the area, potential co‑ordination activities with other land-based activities and nature conservation, and reuse of land after mining closure. For example, involving academia and the community in repurposing Finland’s Pyhäsalmi Mine has helped developed Callio Lab, a unique multidisciplinary research environment inside the mine for training and research and development (R&D), offering opportunities for science and commercial activities.

A stronger regional role to support a more efficient and transparent permitting process

EU countries face significant challenges in streamlining mining permitting processes due to a combination of regulatory, administrative and social factors, which are exacerbated by the different levels of EU, national and local legislation. Most common challenges in the mining permitting process in the Europea Union include complex permitting procedures due to different layers of approval and scarcity in process traceability, limited staff capacity and lack of standardisation of procedures to deal with permits and appeals in regulatory authorities. These institutional challenges are further intensified by the need to process increasing number of appeals and requests for additional information, which adds to the difficulty of small companies to navigate the process and submit high-quality applications.

Opposition from some local governments and communities is one of the main sources of uncertainty in the permitting process. Municipal governments in EU countries can block mining projects, even at exploration stage, either by issuing negative opinions in the permitting process (e.g. Finland and Portugal) or overlapping land-use designations that favour other activities in areas where mineral deposit are located. Municipal governments’ capacity to analyse projects and navigate permitting-related documents adds to the communication challenge for mining project deployment.

While permitting is the main responsibility of national institutions, subnational governments can help improve the efficiency of the process through: i) enabling forward-looking land-use plans; ii) improving subnational government capacity to participate in the permitting process; and iii) enhancing transparency and communications with local authorities and communities about mining.

• Land-use planning is the primary regulatory tool available to subnational authorities for streamlining the mining permitting process and mitigating community unrest regarding operations. In most EU countries, land-use planning serves as a valuable input for the EIA process. For instance, local land‑use plans, developed with inputs from geological and environmental mapping studies, can help delineate areas for extraction while preserving protection of key environmental assets. The Cabeça Veada site, located in the Natural Park of Serra de Aire e Candeeiros (Natura 2000 site) in Portugal, is an example of this. Proactive regional co‑ordination during land-use planning, e.g. delineating the potential and/or existence of mineral resources, can facilitate consensus among municipalities to effectively leverage regional mining potential while considering environmental assets and help prevent conflicts with other economic sectors and communities.

• Subnational governments often face constraints to meaningfully participate in the mining permitting process due to limited staff resources and technical expertise. Ensuring municipal opinions on the permitting process are issued based on complete information requires municipal staff able to understand project EIAs and assess their potential impacts and benefits locally. To address this, regional governments can prioritise funding or partnerships for training and capacity building of municipal and regional staff or partner with universities and geological institutes to address complex technical reviews.

• Greater involvement of communities and local governments in the mining permitting process and transparent communication on the status of the permits is instrumental to avoid delays. Regional authorities can help co‑ordinate with national authorities, geological surveys or universities communication actions to improve information about new projects, especially in the exploration phase, and status of the various permits for the region.

In federal countries, the role of regions is particularly relevant as regional governments are responsible for permitting and can implement direct actions to improve the efficiency of the process. In these cases, regions can themselves establish one-stop shops to analyse projects and issue mining permits, as is the case in Andalusia with the Project Accelerator Unit.

Strengthening monitoring of mining projects and strategies at the regional level

Regional authorities play a key role in ensuring a participatory and long-term monitoring framework for mining projects. They help identify and mitigate environmental impacts while ensuring that mining-related policies achieve their intended outcomes. While the industry is often required to self-monitor and issue frequent reports – and many EU projects align with international standards for responsible mining and value chains – on-the-ground monitoring of environmental legislation remains challenging for national authorities.

EU regional authorities can support the development of multi-stakeholder monitoring systems to track the goals of mining strategies and projects’ environmental and social impacts. While community-led environmental monitoring initiatives already exist is some regions, greater institutionalisation and recognition of their actions would help increase their impact.

Regions can also help tailor communication of monitoring and environmental indicators and international standards to their communities and ensure that information on mining projects is publicly accessible and easy to understand.

Local labour markets for the mining value chain

The ten EU mining regions studied face four interrelated challenges in training and attracting local workforce to meet the labour demands of existing and upcoming mining projects: i) shortage of people due to population decline; ii) shortage of skills due to a mismatch between education and training supply and industry demands; iii) low job attractiveness – especially among youth and women – given information and outreaching gaps; and iv) lack of attractiveness for workers and families in rural municipalities with mining potential (see Table 1.2).

Regions are well placed to help address skill gaps in the industry by promoting collaboration between institutions and the mining industry to develop specialised educational programmes tailored to local characteristics of the workforce. For instance, the municipality of Porto de Mós in Centro partnered with educational institutions and industry to address the challenges of managing limestone quarries located in protected natural areas, leading to the establishment of a research centre, stone exhibitions and training programmes for local youth.

Subnational governments can also prepare the workforce for the skill needs of future mining projects. For example, the municipality of Kaustinen in Central Ostrobothnia partnered with the Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius to map future skill needs arising from upcoming resource projects in sectors such as forestry and renewable energy and collaborate with educational institutions to align educational supply.

Furthermore, these governments can ease access to training supply for municipalities with mining potential to reach the workforce interested in working in the sector. In Finnish and Swedish regions, the provision of vocational training is decentralised, meaning that vocational schools are managed and located in municipalities with mining activities.

Regional innovation ecosystems for circularity and reduced environmental impacts

Innovation within the mining value chain is essential to advance sustainable practices, increase competitiveness of the sector and local value-added in host communities. Along with regulation, technologies for sustainable mining practices are a main tool to help achieve strategic authority for minerals without compromising the environmental protection goals within regions. Circular economy practices, for instance, present opportunities for reduced environmental impacts and material consumption along the entire mining lifecycle, while enhancing mineral supply, e.g. through waste prevention, resource efficiency and material recovery.

However, the expansion of innovation and the circular economy for mining in the European Union faces several barriers. First, the current structures of funding mechanisms for innovation inhibits continuity and commercialisation of innovation projects for the mining sector. The high dependency on European programmes, such as Horizon Europe and the EU Innovation Fund, leads to greater focus on first phases of innovation in research institutions, without long-term support for commercialisation (Muscio, Simonelli and Vu, 2023[10]). Furthermore, the multiplicity of EU and national innovation programmes, each with different specific priorities, requires significant time and resources from innovation actors to navigate applications and hinders the ability to scale funding support for long-term outcomes.

Second, there is a lack of complementary approaches at the regional level to use different funding schemes to support innovation. While regional authorities and research institutions recognise the potential for utilising various complementary funds from EU, national and private sources, these are not systematically explored. For example, regions often rely on the European Regional Development Fund when implementing smart specialisation strategies, with collaborative approaches for using other EU funding possibilities being less common.

Third, regional actors lack a unified vision for mining innovation and, in some regions, platforms to connect and build capacity across innovation actors and provide information and support for funding applications. Regional authorities, entrepreneurs, research centres and companies often lack a set of common priorities on research and innovation to enhance the regional mining ecosystem, including where to target efforts (e.g. industrial innovation and/or the circular economy). Some regions do not have innovation centres to connect stakeholders around mining (Central Greece) and provide important information/support on available funding. In others (Andalusia), partnerships for providers and researchers to test technologies and processes in real environments is also lacking. Even in areas where innovation centres/clusters exist, collaboration can predominantly be confined to large-scale industries.

Lastly, economic and regulatory barriers can inhibit innovations across the mining sector. Economically, this includes high investment needs for mine-specific innovative technologies. In terms of regulation, while waste legislation aims to protect the environment and human health from the impacts of waste, it may also hamper circular economy innovation. The strict requirements attached to managing materials classified as waste, especially those labelled as hazardous waste, can become an obstacle to their recovery.

The European Commission and national governments play a crucial role in streamlining and improving continuity of funding and capacity support for innovation and the circular economy for mining as well as providing economic incentives and reducing regulatory burden, e.g. by supporting the reclassification of certain waste materials from mining to byproducts.

Against this backdrop, regions have unique levers to ensure national and EU efforts are implemented and well placed to:

• Foster innovation through partnerships within the region to reduce information gaps and identify priorities. Partnerships with mining industry need to include particular focuses on linking entrepreneurs and unifying approaches to support the circular economy for mining. For this, centres and networks such as the Associação Cluster Portugal Mineral Resources in Alentejo and Centro and Business Joensuu in North Karelia, are relevant to link SMEs with innovation activities and funding opportunities. Dedicated centres, such as the Digipolis Circular Economy Centre in Lapland can do this by serving as a hub for local businesses to understand and adopt circular economy and industrial symbiosis practices.

• Channel EU funding and partner with private companies to create processing and testing facilities, for example in old mines. Mining innovation relies on physical spaces for creating new tools and testing technologies for the industry. Regions could benefit from innovation centres and industrial parks that help facilitate the mining innovation and industrial symbiosis, assist in commercialising universities’ R&D activities and offer opportunities for local SMEs to join the mining value chain.

• Promote a complementary use of EU (Horizon Europe, Erasums+), national and private funding to advance innovation projects, technological upgrade and capacity of the different stakeholders in the regional innovation ecosystem. Regions can support the circular economy with the deployment of innovative technologies for waste recovery, waste minimisation and digitalisation of processes, including through their integration into regional smart specialisation strategies. For instance, the regional council of North Karelia has been instrumental in providing seed funding and channelling EU funds to the Geological Survey of Finland’s mineral processing pilot plant and research facility, which can anchor activity for a service mining industry hub in the municipality of Outokumpu.

• Disseminate examples of good practices in the circular economy, emphasising opportunities beyond mining waste recovery across the entire mining lifecycle, from mine planning to construction, operation and closure. Regions can provide a vision and enhance the understanding of the benefits and full scope circular economy opportunities provide. For example, many current practices focus on piloting recycling projects, yet some projects are already exploring ways to integrate circularity throughout the entire value chain. For instance, Centro is home to several circular economy champions in the ceramics and stone industry that integrate circularity in their operations at the different stages of their value chain.

Regional energy and transport infrastructure for competitive projects

Adequate infrastructure to support competitive mining projects is still needed in many EU regions. Some municipalities with mineral potential are far from urban centres which increases the cost of delivering road infrastructure as well as support infrastructure such as worker housing or logistic areas (Vidal, 2024[11]). Affordable energy is also often highlighted as a main cost factor to advance valorisation projects of minerals and tailings. Municipalities and regional governments can help address infrastructure issues through partnerships/co‑operation for roads and land-use planning as well as deploying renewable energy projects that also provide social and economic benefits to communities through ownership structures.

Regions face unique challenges in providing and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to support mining operations. Many mining projects rely on municipal roads for transporting supplies, workers and minerals, increasing traffic congestion and pressure on infrastructure. This can create social unrest and place additional financial strain on municipal governments. In some cases, noise pollution and road degradation have weakened community support for mining projects and municipal governments, who are typically responsible for maintaining local roads, often lack the financial resources to address the cumulative impact of mining-related infrastructure use. Furthermore, the often-remote nature of mining operations can create high energy costs that impacts the economic efficiency and attractiveness of projects.

EU regions have various levers to enhance the access and quality of infrastructure and energy for the mining sector while improving quality of life in mining regions. Collaboration between municipalities, communities and industry before project construction can improve local infrastructure planning (for roads and worker housing) and channel resources effectively to ensure municipalities can effectively and transparently deal with the additional toll mining activity can have on local infrastructure. For example, the Chalkida and Psachna Bypass project in Central Greece is a significant step towards co‑ordinating road infrastructure with regional industries and community needs by facilitating traffic on the new road and significantly reducing travel times.

To improve energy conditions for mining projects, regions can work with communities to deploy renewable energy projects that support local needs, while also providing direct economic and social benefits to communities. Across the European Union, energy communities have become an instrumental tool for engaging citizens directly in renewable projects, increasing clean electricity production, lowering utility bills and ensuring greater reliance on local energy sources. Regions and municipalities can play a key role in engaging with community actors to establish co‑operatives such as the Energiegenossenschaft Odenwald eG in the Odenwaldkreis district in Germany with over 3 000 community members (Clean Air Task Force, 2024[12])

Recommendations to enhance regional mining ecosystems

Framework of action for regional authorities

 

	Recommendations	Actions	Responsible actor(s)
I	Improving regional policy frameworks for responsible mining aligned with community priorities
1.	Better integrate mining in regional development policy	Improve integration of mineral-related activities within the regional development plan. This process can help clarify the role of mining in regional development and its links with other industrial regional plans. Develop or update a regional mineral-related strategy with long-term and intermediate objectives, including in areas such as local job creation, regional innovation, sustainability and the circular economy. The strategy can refer to the regional mineral raw material ecosystem. The example of the Regional Mining Strategy of Andalusia 2030 can be a guide. Add measurable actions to support the regional mineral raw material ecosystem in the smart specialisation strategies, including measures to link local businesses with the raw material value chain, and promote circularity in mining. This link in smart specialisation strategies will facilitate the access to EU funds and support the regional ecosystem.	Regional authorities
2.	Leverage mining companies’ ESG programmes for long-term local development	Map the existing mining companies’ ESG initiatives in the territory to enable identification and community awareness of programmes/services provided by mining companies, for instance through a database of companies’ activities. Help ensure mining companies involve community members in the planning/decision making of ESG initiatives. This can be through clear guidelines or established platforms as part of existing consultation processes. Align ESG programmes with regional development plans to ensure these resources are in line with local needs and government priorities. This can be done with direct dialogues with companies or formal exchanges on planning strategies.	Regional authorities, private companies
II	Enhancing mining governance prioritising communications, permitting and monitoring
3.	Improve community participation in mining-related projects, from mining exploration to closure	Establish or adapt current participation platforms to involve stakeholders in the formulation and monitoring of mining-related policies such as regional mining strategies. The multi-stakeholder platform of Antofagasta, Chile, can be a guide. Help standardise consultation processes and interaction of companies tailored to social norms of the region. While national standards might exist, regions would benefit from tailored guidelines of community interaction for companies, especially those in exploration or coming from abroad. Strengthen potential benefit-sharing agreements with industry by supporting local governments or communities in negotiations or connecting with other experiences in the European Union or abroad. Support a greater involvement of local actors in the planning of mine closure and rehabilitation by actively reaching out to companies to promote such discussions.	Regional authorities, municipal governments and research institutions
4.	Enhance communication strategies to align views on mining and on the institutional capacity for mitigating environmental impacts	Promote workshops or knowledge-sharing activities to understand perceptions of the industry and address information gaps. Dedicated support to exchange experiences across municipal governments or mining communities is needed to promote and discuss positive and negative effects of mining and solutions to make the most of future projects. Help to properly advertise and promote town hall discussions for exploration and exploitation projects, through channels that reach various members of the community. Help improve the communication of environmental remediation projects from legacy mining. This can be done by highlighting project outcomes in regional webpages, supporting fora on closing mines and remediations. Advocate for the involvement of a public institution, such as universities or the geological national institute, in initial community discussions for exploration and exploitation projects. This is particularly relevant from the exploration phase to bridge information gaps and enhance trust between companies and communities.	Regional authorities with the support of national governments and research institutions
5.	Help improve the mining permitting process without compromising environmental standards	Establish clear and forward-looking land-use plans to delineate mineral deposits and improve synergies with other sectors and land-use needs, including nature conservation. This would involve co-ordination and collaboration between different actors, including local governments, communities and environmental experts. Strengthen subnational government capacity (human and technical) in mining permitting by helping leverage funding for training, sharing best practices across municipalities and partnering with educational and geological institutions to provide support. Support a more transparent permitting process by helping communicate about exploration projects, and permits being granted in the region. This can be done on the mining-related regional plan website or through links to find the right source of information.	Regional and municipal authorities with the support of national agencies
6.	Help strengthen the environmental monitoring framework for mining	Support and promote community-led environmental monitoring of mining sites, in partnership with environmental agencies. This can be achieved by providing interested communities with technical capacity to measure environmental impacts and communicate them to national authorities. Promote public access to environmental performance data from monitoring efforts, and their use in the enforcement of environmental standards.	Regional and municipal authorities with the support of national agencies
III	Strengthening the regional workforce to boost benefits from mining and industry competitiveness
7.	Improve skills matching through better collaboration between educational institutions and mining companies	Map regional skills to establish or expand vocational training programmes and apprenticeships. This includes developing skills-based assessments of competency, which can help design programmes to reskill seasonal workers from other industries (e.g. agriculture and tourism). Promote industry-academia dialogues to align curricula updates, training opportunities, internships and apprenticeships with skill needs. This is particularly relevant for mine expansions and new mining ventures.	Regional authorities with the support of national governments and research institutions
8.	Tailor education and training supply to workforce characteristics	Locate training centres in municipalities with mining potential to ensure training is closer and adapted to communities with higher-motivated workers. Support the development of short-term applied courses, hands-on training and certifications in partnership with industry, focusing on new technologies and environmental practices. Help formalise and better communicate the potential pathways for vocational students to transit into university.	Regional authorities with the support of national governments and research institutions
9.	Improve outreach on career opportunities in mining	Better communicate high value-added roles and new opportunities in mining, including activities with mining technologies within schools and recent graduates. Target recruitment and promotion of mining education at women. This outreach should go beyond standard communication and promote hands-on experience of modern jobs in mining.	Regional authorities with the support of private companies and research institutions
10.	Enhance regional attractiveness to support workforce engagement and retention	Provide support services for new workers and their families through integration programmes in language and culture, or personalised support to settle in the community. Improve access to services, particularly childcare supply and affordable housing and cultural activities.	Regional authorities with the support of private companies and research institutions
IV.	Promoting regional innovation ecosystem and circular practices for mining sustainability
11.	Strengthen stakeholder co‑operation in the regional mining innovation ecosystem	Improve mapping of regional actors in the innovation ecosystem and the innovation-related projects that exist in the region. Identify common innovation priorities across regional actors through strengthening existing network platforms or clusters. A particular focus on partnerships for commercialisation is important, for example by including a business approach in innovation projects led by regional education institutions. Promote innovation partnerships with mining companies to facilitate testing and applied research and to upscale capacity of regional colleges and research institutions. This includes partnerships to test new technologies in mining sites, or supplying machinery and expertise for training. Facilitate connections between regional universities and geological institutions to promote research exchange, synergies for innovation and upskilling. For example, joint professorship (where one person works for both institutions) or joint research programmes between universities, innovation centres or geological institutions can be instrumental.	Regional authorities with the support of research and education institutions
12.	Support regional stakeholders access funding for research and innovation in mining	Address information gaps and capacity to understand and access EU funding mechanisms. This can be done with single information points on regional websites and in regional administrations, as well as outreach and capacity support from business development agencies. Help channel EU funds to strategic mineral-related projects for the region that unlock innovative and circular solutions for the industry. For example, regions can integrate such solutions, including the development of mining waste characterisation and recovery and wastewater treatment solutions, within their regional smart specialisation strategies to facilitate access to EU funds. The support of the regional council of North Karelia of the creation of the pilot mineral plant GTK Mintec provides a good example. Promote complementary use of EU, national and private funds from the regional level to enhance the regional innovation ecosystem’s capacity. Leverage innovation centres and clusters to guide local business innovation, serve as pilot or testing spaces for mining-related innovation and link business with funding or partnership opportunities outside the region. For example, the projects implemented by the Geological Survey of Finland, the Iberian Sustainable Mining Cluster and the Associação Cluster Portugal Mineral Resources leverage collaborative approaches to make the most of inter‑regional co‑operation.	Regional authorities with the support of business development agencies and research institutions
13.	Promote improved waste management and circular economy practices in mining	Clearly define and outline circular economy priorities and concrete actions for the mining industry in regional smart specialisation and circular-economy-related strategies. This can include the promotion of waste prevention practices and opportunities along the entire mining lifecycle. Provide an enabling framework for improved circularity and waste management by boosting R&D and entrepreneurship (through their regional programmes), facilitating partnerships between various stakeholders (in the form of hubs and platforms). Promote planning for waste management, including mining waste recovery, from early on in the mining project to ensure waste management is properly addressed and possibly waste minimised.	Regional authorities with the support of national governments and research institutions
V	Enabling regional road and energy infrastructure
14.	Strengthen co‑ordination on infrastructure planning, investment and maintenance	Evaluate establishing agreements with companies to support the maintenance of existing infrastructure, or deployment of new community infrastructure also needed for industry, for example housing. Establish common transport plans with resource industries to better co‑ordinate road use to reduce burden on local road infrastructure. Advocate for national government upgrade on transport and energy infrastructure levering the momentum for industrialisation in the European Union. In the Artic regions, the renewed need to enhance self‑defence is an opportunity to improve infrastructure that would support military operation.	Regional authorities with the support of national governments and the private sector
15.	Incentivise renewable energy deployment for industrial and community needs	Support the establishment of energy communities through collaboration with companies and local residents and sharing information with communities on civilian-owned energy co‑operatives. Co‑ordinate with national governments to prioritise deployment of renewable energy projects with enabled land-use plans and joint funding support.	Regional authorities with the support of national governments and the private sector

Framework for action for national governments

 

	Recommendations	Actions	Responsible actor(s)
I	Enhancing policy strategies for a more competitive and environmentally sustainable mining
1.	Establish or update mining national strategies	Establish and update national mining strategies with long-term goals, intermediate tasks and roles for subnational governments to implement strategic actions. Clarify the role of mining for national development and the tools to balance mineral needs with environmental protection.	Ministry in charge of mining, geological institute in collaboration with other ministries and regions
2.	Enhance mining-related innovation and circular practices, including waste management	Define national goals, targets and actions for the mining industry in national waste management and circular economy strategies, plans and legislation. Support the development of co‑ordinated and longer-term innovation funds and programmes for mineral-related priorities, taking into account capacities and needs of regional innovation ecosystems. Consider developing national criteria according to which certain mining waste materials could become byproducts and therefore would cease to be subjected to waste legislation, making the reuse of such materials easier. This may require national programmes for waste characterisation. Improve the efficiency of environmental permitting for waste facilities to incentivise innovation in recycling technologies throughout the project duration. Strengthen incentives for companies to adopt circular mining economy practices through regulatory (e.g. metal recycling and recycled content targets), economic (e.g. new fiscal advantages and green public procurement criteria) and information (digital product passports for batteries) instruments. Prioritise funding for rehabilitation of abandoned and legacy mine sites, involving local communities in decision making.	Ministry in charge of mining, ministry in charge of environmental affairs and geological institute
II	Improving permitting processes and mineral-related information
3.	Enhance institutional co‑ordination and capacity for an efficient and transparent permitting process	Enhance capacity to process permits and appeals, promoting digitalised processes. Standardise the submission and analysis of appeals by using templates and pre-defined forms as well as by defining a more systematic procedure to analyse and address concerns, considering that appeals might repeat similar worries for different projects. Improve transparency of the status of the permitting process, with information on the missing stages and responsible agencies. Establish clear guidelines on the information required for the permitting process and EIA and promote exchange of good practices. For example, the Finnish regulatory agency (ELY Centre) is developing guidelines for all regional permitting authorities and companies, including on closure permits and checklists for best available techniques. Assess whether municipalities can adopt a more evidence-based approach, with multi-level governance co‑ordination, to provide their opinion about exploration projects. Consider strengthening the regulatory framework around the use of ecological compensation as a complementary mitigation measure in environmental assessments.	Ministry in charge of mining, ministry in charge of environmental affairs and geological institute
4.	Improve mining-related information and monitoring	Enhance geological information at the regional and national levels, with a particular focus on characterising mining waste and mapping mineral potential in tailings. Support studies on cumulative EIAs in mining communities. Enhance institutional capacity for monitoring mine/quarry sites – metallic and non-metallic – and effectively communicate monitoring outcomes to the municipality and to the wider public (e.g. through the European Industrial Emissions Portal).	Ministry in charge of mining, ministry in charge of environmental affairs and geological institute
III	Addressing social concerns about mining through enhanced communications and community participation
5.	Enhance communication about mining and institutional capacity to govern the sector	Support communication programmes and interactive education initiatives (e.g. workshops) to clarify positive and negative effects of mining and explain new mining technologies and practices. This includes supporting regions to strengthen dialogue strategies at the local level. Improve communication of institutional actions and capacity to mitigate mining environmental effects as well as outcomes of environmental monitoring systems. This can involve information systems that transparently showcase the different remediation and monitoring actions as well as communication campaigns at the local level to explain these activities. For instance, outcomes of mining rehabilitation efforts of the Portuguese national mining development company (EDM) can be further communicated across municipal governments and communities. Further standardise communication processes of exploration and new mining projects, by tailoring standards to regional characteristics and promoting a national authority or a university to accompany companies and give mining projects a social licence to operate in the exploration phase.	Ministry in charge of mining, geological institute in collaboration with other ministries and regions
6	Streamline consultation processes and involve local stakeholders early on in mineral-related projects	Build on existing consultation frameworks to clarify and standardise frameworks for early and inclusive consultation with local stakeholders during the planning and decision-making phases of mining projects. This includes establishment of a clear process for formulating impact-benefit agreements. Leverage existing standards or initiatives for responsible mining to promote the implementation of a single nationwide standard for mining companies’ interaction and consultation with local communities. This can be supported by a participatory governance structure that ensures equal representation and voice from various actors.	Ministry in charge of mining, industry association and geological institute in collaboration with other ministries and regions

References

[4] Agencia Andaluza de la Energia (2024), “Andalucía cierra 2023 con un récord histórico de instalación de energías renovables en un solo año”, https://www.agenciaandaluzadelaenergia.es/es/actualidad/andalucia-cierra-2023-con-un-record-historico-de-instalacion-de-energias-renovables-en-un-solo-ano.

[12] Clean Air Task Force (2024), Clean Energy from the Ground Up: Energy Communities in the EU, https://www.catf.us/resource/clean-energy-ground-up-energy-communities-european-union/.

[2] EC (2024), Critical Raw Materials Act, European Commission, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/areas-specific-interest/critical-raw-materials/critical-raw-materials-act_en.

[1] EC (2008), The Raw Materials Initiative - Meeting Our Critical Needs for Growth and Jobs in Europe, European Commission, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0699:FIN:en:PDF.

[6] EEA (2024), European Industrial Emissions Portal (dataset), European Environment Agency, https://industry.eea.europa.eu/ (accessed on 5 September 2024).

[9] Eurostat (2024), Generation of Waste by Waste Category, Hazardousness and NACE Rev. 2 Activity, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasgen__custom_12486228/default/table?lang=en&page=time:2020 (accessed on 5 August 2024).

[8] Eurostat (2024), Material Flow Accounts, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_ac_mfa/default/table?lang=en&category=env.env_mrp.

[7] INE (2023), “Monthly earnings of employees by place of work”, Statistics Portugal, https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_destaques&DESTAQUESdest_boui=594920364&DESTAQUESmodo=2.

[5] IPTO (2024), “2023 a record year for clean energy in Greece”, https://www.admie.gr/en/kentro-typoy/press-releases/2023-record-year-clean-energy-greece.

[10] Muscio, A., F. Simonelli and H. Vu (2023), “Bridging the valley of death in the EU renewable energy sector: Toward a new energy policy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 32/7, pp. 4620-4635, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3384.

[3] OECD (2025), Regions, Cities and Local Statistics, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/regions-cities-and-local-statistics.html.

[13] OECD (n.d.), Regions, Cities and Local Statistics, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/regions-cities-and-local-statistics.html.

[14] OECD (n.d.), Toolkit for Mining Regions Well-being, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-main.shinyapps.io/mining-regions-wellbeing/.

[11] Vidal, F. (2024), “The quest for a sustainable industry: mining, path dependency and post-carbon regime in the European Arctic”, Mineral Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-024-00451-0.

Note

← 1.  The OECD Toolkit to Measure Well-being in Mining Regions identifies 50 OECD mining regions with a high specialisation in mining activity relative to their respective countries to better benchmark well-being trends relative to other OECD regions and identify challenges and strengths.