This chapter examines strategies to improve inter-governmental co‑ordination to enhance EU regional mining ecosystems. The chapter focus on five main priority areas for better coordination: establishing strategic policy alignment; streamlining regulatory processes; ensuring social acceptance and community engagement; expanding funding opportunities; and enhancing monitoring of projects and strategies.
Enhancing Regional Mining Ecosystems in the European Union
Securing the Green Transition and Supply of Mineral Raw Materials
Abstract
Co‑ordination across levels of government for strategic mining policies: Clear governance mechanisms to promote multilevel governance co‑ordination are essential to ensure effective and responsible implementation of the European Union (EU) Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). This includes aligning mining companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) activities with long‑term regional development, strengthening national-subnational co‑ordination to implement national mineral-related strategies and improving inter-regional and inter-municipal collaboration to unlock synergies.
Streamlining the permitting process for mining: Many EU mining regions face similar challenges in streamlining permitting processes for mining projects including complex procedures, lack of standardisation, land-use conflicts and technical/capacity deficiencies at the national and subnational levels. Addressing these challenges requires a multilevel governance approach with key actions that include enhancing transparency at every stage, refining guidelines for authorities and companies, improving communications and standardising application and appeal procedures. Strengthening municipal capacity is also crucial to ensure their informed participation in permitting and land‑use decisions.
Strengthening community engagement in mining and reducing misconceptions about the sector: Social resistance to mining in the European Union is a major challenge to meeting the goals of the CRMA. Key drivers of such resistance include the negative environmental and social impacts of legacy mining projects, land-use competition between mining and other sectors/local interests and a lack of clear frameworks for community involvement and consultation regarding projects. Regional governments and mining companies have a crucial role in improving social perceptions towards mining, building trust and addressing misconceptions around modern mining.
Easing access to funding for mining-related activities at the regional level: While there is no dedicated CRMA funding stream, governments can rely on a combination of funding mechanisms (EU and national) to implement strategic projects. However, many EU mining regions struggle with inconsistent mechanism to prioritise mining value chain projects, fragmented funding schemes and limited capacity and information to navigate funding application processes. EU mining regions can maximise funding opportunities for mineral-related projects through complementary use of EU funds (e.g. European Regional Development Fund and Horizon Europe) with national and private investment and leveraging the EU Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) mechanism to enhance their mineral innovation ecosystems.
Strengthening the monitoring and evaluation process: Mining companies in the European Union conduct mandatory environmental reporting and broader ESG impact assessments, following EU regulations. While this provides important insights into projects impacts, concerns on transparency and communities’ understanding and accessibility to such environmental measures remain important. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation of mining project impacts can be improved with greater support for multi-stakeholder reporting systems, improved accessibility of information and whistleblower mechanisms to allow stakeholders to report irresponsible practices.
Supporting regional development and realising the goals of the CRMA relies heavily on effective alignment of subnational mining-related policies with EU and national strategies and legislation. Regional actors and governments play a pivotal role in implementing mining projects, from leveraging geological assets and establishing expertise to institutional support for circular and more environmentally sustainable practices.
As outlined in previous chapters, achieving successful mining development and fostering positive impacts on host communities requires addressing several enabling factors in EU regions. These include proactive mining governance, stronger local labour markets, robust innovation systems and adequate transport and energy infrastructure (Chapter 3). A critical challenge for the European Commission and EU member countries is to balance environmental sustainability with competitiveness and a reliable mineral supply, responsibilities that often cascade to regional authorities (Chapter 4).
Departing from key identified priorities, this chapter outlines how co‑ordination across governments can help secure both a stable mineral supply and positive long-term benefits for the hosting community. The chapter focuses on five main areas of inter-governmental co‑ordination that are essential to effective regional mining ecosystems: establishing strategic policy alignment; streamlining regulatory processes; ensuring social acceptance and community engagement; expanding funding opportunities; and enhancing project and strategy monitoring.
Mining governance, as a mode of managing local effects and to ensure better outcomes for communities, has emerged in recent decades with the notion of “good governance”, encompassing principles of participation, transparency and accountability in public management (Domínguez-Gómez and González-Gómez, 2021[1]).
Implementing the CRMA requires a collective responsibility across levels of governments to promote responsible mining project that also provide long-term development for local communities. For this, clear governance mechanisms to promote multilevel governance co‑ordination are a first step. National governments have the role of adapting their policies to decrease the time of the permitting process for mining, attract investments based on mineral assets and link mining projects with national development goals (Chapter 3). Subnational authorities have a crucial role to prepare their economies and workforce to make the most of these projects and ensure participatory processes for decision making that take into account community visions.
Subnational governments have diverse responsibilities across economic, social and environmental dimensions to improve development and quality of life. Identifying the specific responsibilities of regional authorities and innovation ecosystem actors is a crucial step in the successful implementation of the CRMA. This clarity will facilitate accountability and ensure that each stakeholder understands its role.
Responsibilities vary across EU countries (Table 5.1). In Finland, Portugal and Sweden, the municipal level has the main responsibilities on economic development and land-use planning, defining if and how mining can be linked with local development. That means municipalities decide the main policy and economic priority for the territory. In Greece, while the national government guides most of the economic development across the territory, subnational governments have a greater decision-making power regarding economic projects. In Spain, the regional level has the greatest powers.
Source: OECD ( (2022[2])), 2022 Synthesis Report World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b80a8cdb-en
Mechanisms to co‑ordinate across levels governments and across departments within a government range from policy instruments and funding programmes to formal co‑ordinating government units or meetings. Co‑ordination through mining policies (national and regional), discussed in Chapter 3, are straightforward ways to align visions across governments and stakeholders with concrete gaols for the sector. For instance, the smart specialisation strategy serves as a national or regional strategy that links economic projects with regional businesses and aligns research and innovation strengths with projects and needs. This section will focus on institutional mechanisms for vertical co‑ordination at the national and subnational levels, horizontal co‑ordination among municipalities and international co‑ordination among subnational governments (regions and municipalities).
Vertical co‑ordination to agree and implement mining policies
National and subnational co‑operation is critical for the effective implementation of mining policies in the European Union due to the role of regions in translating EU legislation and national mining policies into actionable local initiatives, implementing innovation strategies and managing some EU funds. This vertical co‑ordination ensures that national strategies and EU directives are adapted effectively at the subnational level, accounting for the specific geological, environmental and social contexts of regions. Different phases of national-regional co‑ordination are crucial to advance mining policy strategies in the European Union:
First, the involvement of regions in the definition of visions and priorities for the strategy. Mechanisms for this include workshops and roundtables with subnational governments, as established by Finland, to gather subnational views and inputs in the national mining strategy updating process . Other actions include integrating dedicated regional profiles in the mining strategy to better define each region’s ecosystem.
Second, co‑ordination to improve the attractiveness and branding of regions set to host projects, linking them with the economy. Branding is more than a question of labelling: it could be used to shape the vision, projects and stakeholders, empowering them to join forces and act stronger together. Promotion strategies of the regional assets for mining-related activities (providers, exploration, extraction and processing) tend to be more impactful when benefitting from national support in terms of dissemination.
All ten EU mining regions studied in this report have a variety of economic sectors and environmental and cultural assets that can be better promoted to highlight the cross-sectoral synergies and environmental and economic balance. This promotion can also clearly highlight the geological assets of the regions through a single portal for investors. For example, the Chilean National Mining Policy outlines employment, income and geological data disaggregated across regions and the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy embeds each provincial mining strategy for easy access.
Third, joint national-regional actions to identify priority projects are relevant to advance the implementation of the CRMA based on concrete business plans. As this chapter will discuss, low scale and isolated investments for mineral projects in the European Union are one of the main constraints to improve the competitiveness of this sector, relative to some non-EU countries who are faster in taking decision and gather greater investment capital. To this end, regions can be instrumental in helping identify the mineral projects that might benefit from greater social acceptance and local conditions of infrastructure. Also, some priority projects can be related to mineral processing, with regional governments being well placed to identify the entrepreneurs and researchers in the region with projects that could add value or improve sustainability in the mining value chain.
Other relevant co‑ordination areas will be discussed in detail throughout this chapter, including permitting processes, community engagement and project monitoring.
Strengthening co‑operation with ESG mining activities for long-term regional development
Social and political pressure for responsible mining practices has grown over the years, demanding businesses’ greater attention to sustainable development over purely economic gains. This shift has also led institutional investors and financial markets to increase their interest in responsible mining businesses, from both risk management and social responsibility viewpoints.
In this context, ESG standards have become increasingly relevant to guiding responsible investments, leading many mining companies to adopt ESG programmes and strategies. Global surveys of mining executives show that environmental and social risks are the most important perceived risk for projects, above decarbonisation, geopolitics or market demand (Ernst & Young, 2022[3])
Across all 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 (Table 5.2). These projects have benefitted local communities, with access to quality sport facilities such as mining company Boliden’s hockey stadium in Sodankylä, Finland, or local businesses and entrepreneurs, with access to funding and capacity support such as the Zinkgruvan Mine diversification programme in Örebro, Sweden. In Kittilä, Finnish Lapland, Agnico-Eagle supported tourism companies during the pandemic period and has partnered with the local government to implement strategies to improve the attractiveness of the municipality.
Source: Information reflected in the ten regional profiles for the project OECD (2025), Enhancing EU Regional Mining Ecosystems to Secure the Mineral Raw Material Supply and the Green Transition
Launched in 2018 by Zinkgruvan Mining, the Entrepreneur Program, also known as Zinkgruvan Mining re:think, aims to bolster the local economy by fostering entrepreneurship and preparing the community for a future beyond mining. This innovative initiative is led by the company in collaboration with local stakeholders to mitigate the economic impact of potential mine closures.
The programme works by providing mentorship and support to local businesses, particularly those not directly related to mining. Through workshops, personalised guidance and networking opportunities, the programme equips businesses with the skills and knowledge necessary to thrive independently. Notably, during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the programme played a crucial role in ensuring the survival of participating companies by offering additional support and resources.
Outcomes of the Entrepreneur Program have been significant, with over 40 local businesses benefitting from mentorship and support. These companies have reported higher success rates and resilience compared to those not involved in the programme. By fostering a diverse and robust local economy, Zinkgruvan Mining’s initiative not only supports current economic stability but also promotes the long‑term sustainability of the community.
However, in most of the ten EU regions, the national government acts as the main decision-making entity with the sector and this coupled with a mixed social perception towards mining have weakened the incentives for subnational governments to actively co‑ordinate, engage civil society and partner with mining companies for local development. This lack of governance involvement in mining activities has led companies to conduct ESG activities directly with communities without intermediaries, resulting in a number of issues:
Duplication and uncoordinated actions in communities with various active companies. Multiple companies undertaking ESG initiatives in a single community might end up duplicating support and missing opportunities to attain synergies. Companies tend to negotiate and agree bilaterally with communities or governments on ESG initiatives without previous co‑ordination with other companies operating in the area.
Uncoordinated goals with governments and communities’ priorities. In some mining communities, ESG activities are misaligned with regional and municipal development plans and local priorities. These misalignments reduce the local ownership on the project and thus its impact. Some regions have received sport centres and recreational infrastructure that are not aligned with local culture or located in places with difficult access for those interested. Such lack of alignment misses opportunities to gain scale and impact in the projects.
Creation of dependency behaviour. Implementation of ESG initiatives and activities can create dependency behaviour in communities when they become reliant on the company’s aid for their livelihoods. In some cases, the “dependency mentality” is described whereby communities look to a company to provide them with resources as recompense for social and environmental damage or communities see companies as an opportunity get access to better resources and infrastructure that will enhance their welfare, without any empowerment or knowledge transfer.
Risk of increasing inequality and conflict among communities. ESG can inadvertently increase inequality and conflict among communities if benefits are unevenly distributed or shared. The management of who will benefit from ESG programmes and/or how financial benefits are awarded can create internal conflict and unrest across societal groups.
Lack of long-term monitoring and continuity of ESG activities. While there are various mechanisms to monitor ESG actions – ranging from company-initiated ESG reports to third-party ESG ratings – local monitoring of ESG programme outcomes remains fragmented and often limited to short-term perspectives. Without continuous assessment, tracking the effectiveness of these initiatives and making necessary adjustments is challenging.
Addressing the above-mentioned challenges is not solely the responsibility of mining companies; it requires a comprehensive approach with strong leadership from governments, in which regional authorities have an instrumental role. Therefore, enhancing the role of ESG actions in local development calls for a well‑co‑ordinated planning, design and implementation process, with greater engagement from governments and communities to ensure these efforts lead to sustained, long-term outcomes. Key areas for action to strengthen ESG impacts on long-term rural development include:
Subnational government actions to co‑ordinate ESG programmes. In many regions this co‑ordination starts by mapping and tracking existing corporate initiatives within the territory. While this may seem straightforward, such an aggregated database is often missing at the regional and local levels, due to factors such as large geographic scope, the autonomy of companies to negotiate projects directly with communities and historically isolated relationships between corporate actions and government initiatives.
Participatory planning of ESG programmes to address local needs. Involving local governments and community members in the planning and decision-making processes of ESG initiatives from the outset ensures that these activities are aligned with local priorities and plans, benefit from local knowledge and promote inclusion and diversity by hearing from diverse voices. This can be done, for example, through establishing a platform for mining companies to present ESG projects to a panel of local stakeholders to gain feedback.
Aligning ESG programmes with government development plans is an efficient mechanism to unlock synergies between public and private support and ensure coherent implementation for regional objectives. This alignment can help address essential priorities such as housing, infrastructure, education and healthcare, which are often critical for rural and Indigenous communities. To promote such co‑ordination, subnational governments have adopted different strategies, including multi-actor government structures to identify commons needs and define action plans. For example, the governance structure for the regional mining strategy of Antofagasta, Chile, public-private platforms of co‑ordination or municipal mining plans with a dedicated contact point assist companies in better aligning ESG initiatives with regional needs.
Improving inter-municipal collaboration to unlock synergies
Local governments have relevant roles to adapt mining to local needs, especially through their local development plans, land-use plans and proximity to community views and priorities. Some municipal governments in EU regions with mining activities also have interactions with mining companies to discuss impacts of the projects locally and help arrange information meetings and community engagement.
However, a recurring challenge identified by local governments in municipalities with mining activities or mining potential across the ten EU regions studied is the lack of staff and technical capacity to assess the impacts and benefits of mining projects. This limitation hinders their ability to create favourable conditions for linking mining activities to the local economy and managing economic transitions, such as diversification efforts.
For example, during the closure process of Pyhäsalmi Mine in 2022, the mayor of the municipality of Pyhäjärvi, Oulu region, emphasised the need for greater support for planning the transition. He noted that access to targeted assistance and lessons from similar experiences could have significantly helped prepare the local population and businesses for the economic transition.
In other cases, such as Greece and Sweden, municipal governments often lack information on ongoing mining exploration projects within their jurisdictions, as exploration is managed at the national level. In Portugal, municipalities like Pampilhosa da Serra raised concerns about inadequate communication regarding forthcoming exploration projects. In this case, the national government’s communication was limited to email, delegating the responsibility to the company to directly inform the municipality and community about the project.
These communication and capacity bottlenecks have led some municipal governments to adopt a cautious stance toward mining, including exploration activities. These gaps limit opportunities to co‑ordinate future projects, align ESG activities and address community needs. In the case of Pampilhosa da Serra, the lack of effective communication and insufficient involvement of national authorities during the initial phase contributed to opposition to the exploration project.
Furthermore, many municipalities lack the necessary expertise and capacity to negotiate community-beneficial investments with mining companies. In some cases, local authorities are not fully informed about the support already being provided by companies to community initiatives, such as education or social programmes. These shortcomings result in missed opportunities to better align private-sector contributions with government priorities and optimise their impact for local communities.
Based on discussions with municipalities in the European Union, some relevant actions to strengthen the role for municipalities in the governance of mining include:
Inter-municipal structures to enhance municipal capacity to benefit from mining projects. By pooling resources and scaling up expertise, inter-municipal collaboration strengthens municipal capacity to access information, engage with mining projects and better address workforce and community priorities. For example, Business Joensuu in North Karelia, Finland, supports economic development, investment attraction and workforce alignment, helping municipalities maximise industrial and mining project benefits. Similarly, in Central Ostrobothnia, Finland, the Kaustinen sub‑region unites five municipalities to address shared priorities. This co‑operation led to a joint study on future skills demands and a shared job-matching platform, linking workforce capabilities and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to emerging opportunities in the mining sector (Box 5.2).
Kaustinen sub-region is a subdivision of Central Ostrobothnia, consisting of the municipalities of Halsua, Kaustinen, Lestijärvi, Perho, Toholampi and Vetel. The sub-region is experiencing economic growth from major projects in lithium mining, wind power and potentially bioenergy and solar power. To connect local businesses with these opportunities, initiatives like the Suurhanketoimisto.fi platform have been implemented. This platform allows businesses to create profiles, facilitating connections with contractors and is available in multiple languages. The regional business services team also supports local companies by providing information on major projects, promoting businesses to developers and helping smaller firms collaborate on larger contracts.
To meet the demands of these projects, businesses are encouraged to implement environmental and safety standards. The region offers comprehensive support, including assistance with business setup, training programmes, internationalisation guidance and funding. These initiatives aim to help local businesses maximise the benefits of EUR2 billion in investments.
Source: (Kaustisen Seutu, nd[5])
Inter-municipal platforms to exchange experiences on mining are also an instrumental mechanism to learn how other municipal governments have managed mining projects and faced opening or closing transitions. Many regions have inter-municipal association bodies that help exchange mayors across a range of policies. A focus on exchanging views to prepare municipalities for the green and digital transition in resource projects should be a priority in the European Union, as it is accelerating the implementation of policies in this regard. So far, international collaboration across regions interested in mining activities exists but this is not the case for municipalities. It would also help to address misunderstanding on modern mining across local governments by learning how some local governments have rehabilitated old mining projects and are managing new projects with better outcomes locally.
Boosting international collaboration across regions
Inter-regional collaboration within and across countries empowers the continued development of regional ecosystems and the achievement of common goals through synergies among regional actors and an openness to learning from best practices. It also allows regions to benefit from the various EU funding mechanisms requiring this partnership.
EU regions have a good record of collaboration across different projects, often bound together by EU programmes and funds that support this type of co‑operation. Various EU types of partnership can promote collaboration around mining. The Thematic Smart Specialisation Partnerships (TSSPs) gather regions interested in initiating and exploring new value chains in specific priority areas based on shared interests in their smart specialisation strategies. TSSPs focus on areas with high potential for technological, societal and ecological returns at the regional and European levels, supported by shared smart specialisation strategy priorities across committed regions, cluster organisations, businesses, innovation actors and civil society. Additionally, other partnerships at the EU level, such as those under EIT RawMaterials, M-ERA-NET and European missions,1 significantly influence the utilisation of available funding programmes, with some also providing direct funding (European Commission, nd[6]; M-ERA.NET, nd[7]; EIT RawMaterials, nd[8]).
The most known recent example of inter-regional collaboration around mining is 2017 EU project Mining and Metallurgy Regions of EU (MIREU). Supported by EU funds, this partnership aimed at establishing a network of mining and metallurgy regions across Europe to exchange practices and promote partnerships for a sustainable supply of minerals and to advance investment, innovation and growth in the sector (MIREU, n.d.[9]). Based on this network, EU regions joined a Thematic Smart Specialisation Partnership on Mining, which is currently the most visible effort to gather regional actors to exchange experiences around mining governance and propose joint projects to national governments and the European Union.
While these inter-regional collaborations are valuable efforts to create synergies and highlight the role of mining for regional development, sustained support is needed to maintain co‑operation over time. Improving these partnerships is of interest to the industry, national and EU governments, to help implement the CRMA with a greater value for communities. However, the continuity of the Thematic Smart Specialisation Partnership on Mining has been mainly funded and led by regional governments. The Regional Council of Lapland was initially the main co‑ordinator of the partnership, taking over the cost of this co‑ordination role, while other regional governments funded their own trips and activities to conduct in-person exchange meetings and field visits. National or EU backing, either with capacity building or funding to maintain these networks, could be beneficial to align regional goals with opportunities from mining projects.
Regulatory systems that are unpredictable, inefficient, lengthy and opaque can fail to balance the opportunities and challenges of mining projects. This reduces attractiveness for investors, causes planning bottlenecks for municipalities and can result in the polarisation of communities. According to the 2023 Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies, mining companies highlight that public policy represents 40% of their investment decision, which is almost as much as geology (Fraser Institute, 2024[10]). Particularly, small, junior exploration companies struggle when it comes to uncertainties in regulatory environments, as their access to capital is often limited. The cyclical nature of the minerals markets with fluctuating prices further reduces investment timelines and increases the need for regulatory stability.
How governments regulate the mining sector shapes its environmental impact, attractiveness to investors and acceptability to local communities. The predictability and certainty of permitting decisions are also crucial for municipal planning, environmental sustainability and circular and closure processes. Regional governments, including municipalities, often see mining as an opportunity to foster regional development through increased employment and tax revenues as well as the development of local infrastructure and services.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, in the European Union, critical minerals typically fall in the category of state-owned minerals, meaning the state is the owner of mineral deposits and not the landowner of the minerals’ location. This is because the extraction of these minerals is considered in the national interest (University of Leoben, 2004[11]). This results in national governments overseeing permitting, except in the case of federal countries (Germany or Spain) where regional/provincial governments have a greater role (see Table 3.3). For local communities, state ownership has various implications as often decisions regarding mining projects rests with national governments, not local authorities.
Most EU member states follow similar procedures in relation to the permitting of critical mineral extraction.
Mining exploration across EU member states requires few approvals processes, as it is a less invasive-land-use process, with limited environmental risks, which extracts geological samples using a limited number of drills to analyse the resources and feasibility of the project. EU countries do not normally ask for environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and the number of authorities involved in this process is typically low with a range between 0-1 (EC, 2017[12]). Some countries such as Greece, Spain and Sweden sometimes require EIAs if the exploration activity is expected to have significant environmental impacts. More relevant bottlenecks in this process include municipal or community unrest and acceptance (see Portuguese example in Box 5.3).
The permitting process for extraction is more complicated and lengthier as it involves EIAs, and approval from various authorisation bodies (see previous chapter). Across EU member states, the number of entities involved in this stage varies between 2 and 27 (EC, 2017[12]).
The 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 or regulations that permits needs to navigate to approve a project. Most common challenges in the mining permitting process in the European Union include:
Complex permitting procedures due to different layers of approval: Permitting processes often involve multiple layers of national and regional regulations, creating delays and uncertainties for investors.
Technical challenges affecting the application and processing of permits for mining projects:
Limited staff capacity and systematic approach in government agencies to address appeals and process permits.
Complex requests for companies to cover all certainties/analysis required for the permitting process, which lead to submitting applications with information gaps, particularly on best available techniques or the closure process.
Lack of standardisation across member states further complicates these procedures, making it challenging to establish a consistent EU-wide framework for mining projects.
Land-use conflicts: Balancing the use of land for mining with competing interests, such as environmental conservation, agriculture and urban development, often leads to conflicts. Zoning or land use is often for one single purpose, for example either for tourism or industrial purposes, requiring time to make the case for a different use. Even when a mine is closed, this single focused land-use plan makes it difficult to use the land for other activities (tourism, parks). Effective integration of mineral resource information with broader land-use planning remains an unresolved issue, contributing to delays in project approval.
Communication and guidance difficulties to navigate and understand the process:
With regards to up-to-date guidance, there are still uncertainties with regards to the information that must be submitted, particularly regarding the EIA and the level of detail about closure, environmental risks and tailings management.
There is unclear information about the right institution to address complaints or rectification, as different agencies cover similar issues, e.g. In Finland, until recently, the Regional State Administrative Agency (AVI) managed the environmental permit and Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY centres) the EIA.
As discussed in the next section, community engagement, perception and acceptance towards mining is still a main factor delaying the permitting process. This has led to an increased number of appeals as there are no limitations to objections that can be made during the EIA process. Opposition has even affected exploration activities, as in the case of Portugal, with some municipalities firmly opposing the activity (Box 5.3).
Portuguese municipalities have gained significant power over mining development under updated mining laws, including the right to veto projects, and receive up to 50% of royalties from mining activities. This municipal veto power has allowed local governments in regions such as Centro and Norte in Portugal to block exploration projects, especially for lithium, demonstrating their critical role in shaping mining strategies and ensuring alignment with local priorities.
Mining projects that are poorly communicated and driven solely by company-led narratives are at greater risk of failure. When companies focus on economic benefits while neglecting environmental and social concerns, communities are likely to oppose them. In Covas do Barroso, for instance, 95% of the local population rejected a proposed lithium mine, citing a lack of meaningful consultation and concerns about environmental risks. Similarly, in Fundão, residents resisted exploration due to fears that mining could threaten the agri-food sector, further underscoring how inadequate community engagement can derail projects.
A major challenge is the lack of local knowledge about modern mining processes, particularly the distinction between exploration and full-scale mining. Many residents fear immediate, irreversible damage. In Pinhel, this misunderstanding prompted local authorities to prepare legal action against exploration, despite its preliminary nature. Bridging these knowledge gaps is critical to fostering trust and ensuring communities are informed about the stages and potential impacts of mining projects.
These cases highlight the importance of engaging local governments and communities in all stages of mining projects. Municipal veto power gives local authorities a key role, but companies must improve communication and transparency to align projects with community priorities and ensure their success.
Source: (Green European Journal, 2024[13])Euronews (2023[14]), “Portugal wants to exploit its lithium reserves. But at what cost to the environment?”, https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/09/portugal-wants-to-exploit-its-lithium-reserves-but-at-what-cost-to-the-environment.;
Addressing permitting issues from a multi‑level governance approach
Addressing the above challenges and successfully streamlining the mine permitting process require multi‑level governance mechanisms that facilitate collaboration both within and between regions and national governments, creating a streamlined permitting process across the European Union. Some key actions needed for national and subnational governments are outlined in Table 5.3.
All the national and regional levels, efforts to streamline mining permitting require a careful balance between environmental protection, community participation and ensuring an efficient regulatory process for competitive mining sector. Currently all EU countries are evaluating and advancing in the CRMA’s provision to reduce mining permitting in the European Union to fewer than three years. Finland has merged permitting institutions and, as well as Portugal and Spain, is creating an inter-institutional mechanism to co‑ordinate strategic projects. Greece is evaluating mechanism for such one-stop‑shop and outsourcing strategies to process EIAs to overcome the lack of staff capacity in the administration.
Strengthening the role of regions to improve efficiency of permitting processes
These efforts at the national level need to be supported by actions at the subnational level. As intermediaries between national governments and local communities, regions play a critical role in addressing mine permitting challenges by helping reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, particularly in land‑use processes, improving subnational capacities to deal with permitting and enhancing community participation and communications in the permitting process.
Improving efficiency of land-use process for permitting
First, regional governments can help reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and align local processes with national and EU-level frameworks. The most direct role of subnational governments to increase efficiency in permitting is the development of enabling land-use plans that consider mineral endowment in the region. In most of the EU countries analysed in this report, the land-use plan is a valuable input to the EIA process and the CRMA encourages member states to include provisions for the exploitation of critical raw materials in spatial plans or zoning projects.
A strong co‑ordination from regional governments to prepare land-use plans along with municipal governments is an instrumental platform to align views on the potential role of mining in 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, as is the case of Andalusia, Spain, with the Project Accelerator Unit (Box 5.4). Other regions in unitary countries could also implement actions to align decisions on land use across different regional government departments. This implies a process that approaches the whole region based on potential endogenous economic opportunities.
The Project Accelerator Unit in Andalusia was formed to streamline regulatory assessments and provide further government support to ensure the successful startup and execution of projects. This includes promoting strategic projects that contribute to Andalusia’s achievement of objectives in contributing to Spain’s mineral autonomy. The unit co‑operates with national ministries that impact the investment and permitting procedures of mining projects in the region as well as the corresponding local administrations. It is therefore a strong example of how policies and programmes that amplify multilevel governance can assist in more streamlined implementation of the CRMA.
Proposed mining project Oropesa has been submitted to the programme, initiating the process of ensuring the integration of this project is streamlined by connecting the private sector with relevant information and actors such as local authorities to create efficient consultations and EIAs.
Source: Proactive (2022[15]), “Elementos reiterated a buy after Andalucían Government names Oropesa as a significant mining project”, https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/977279/elementos-reiterated-a-buy-after-andalucian-government-names-oropesa-as-a-significant-mining-project-977279.html.
Addressing technical and capacity challenges within regions
Subnational governments often face bottlenecks in their participation in the mining permitting process due to limited staff resources and technical expertise. Municipal governments are asked to provide an opinion about a project (often within the EIA process). Ensuring these opinions are issued based on complete information requires municipal staff able to understand the EIA prepared by the companies and to assess the potential impacts and benefits locally. With EIA and permitting documents that can exceed 100 pages and involve specific technicalities, municipalities can find it difficult to understand the complexities of the projects.
To address this, regional governments can prioritise funding or partnerships for the EIA evaluation training and capacity building of municipal and regional staff. In obtaining expertise, they can focus on creating partnerships with universities and geological institutes to address complex technical reviews. Examples of areas outside the European Union can be a good guide in this matter (Box 5.5).
The NCGMP collaborates with geoscience staff and students across American colleges and universities in a variety of regions, as well as State Geological Surveys. This partnership aims to improve geological mapping and understanding, which are crucial for assessing environmental impacts in mining projects and attracting investment to mining regions.
Source: USGS (2025[16]), National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/national-cooperative-geologic-mapping-program.
Improving community engagement and participation in the permitting process
Community participation is crucial for securing social acceptance of mining projects. Regional governments can foster better community engagement by bridging knowledge gaps within the community about modern mining practices through dedicated programmes and workshops. They can also improve communication so that local interests are upheld in discussions with mining companies, rebuilding local trust in government. For instance, in Portugal, municipalities hold considerable power over mining project decision making, allowing a local seat at the table to align mining development with local priorities. Improving community engagement in mining, including in permitting processes, will be discussed in more detail in the following section.
In sum
Common priorities identified across the five EU countries analysed to streamline the permitting process and reduce uncertainty and delays include:
Improving co‑ordination across agencies issuing permits, particularly across environmental and monitoring agencies with those issuing permits and promoting mining development.
Improving communication and guidelines for companies by:
Establishing clear guidelines on the information required for the permitting process (including which changes during operations requires a new permit) and the EIA, along with maximum times for process. For example, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment in Kainuu, Finland, are developing guidelines to clarify information for all permitting authorities and companies, drawing up separate guidelines for closure permits and best-available-technique checklists.
Clarifying the mechanism for the national government to implement the CRMA, ensuring resources to align national mining policy reform with expectations of the CRMA. This involves setting deadlines for approval of strategic projects, giving prospective mining companies a feeling of assurance.
Leveraging existing dissemination activities to further share good practices with regards to EIA application across companies and permitting authorities. For example, webinars and workshops to exchange with industry can be carried out frequently.
Enhancing government capacity and agility to process permits and address appeals by:
Increasing staff capacity and the digitalisation of the permitting process. Implementing required streamlining processes and maintaining quick approval timelines of mine‑permitting processes will require significant human resource capacity and systematic information exchange.
Establishing a systematic approach to analyse and address appeals in government agencies and in courts, considering that appeals might repeat similar concerns for different projects. The electronic information exchange system for permitting can be leveraged to improve transparency, clarity and monitoring each stage of the permitting process.
Evaluating the removal or parallel approval of the land-use plan as a requirement for the mining permitting process within the Mining Act, in countries where it is the case (Finland, Portugal). This could allow land-use planning and other permitting processes to proceed separately, easing the resolution of conflicts at the national level.
Involving geological institutes or universities in the communication process of exploration mining projects with the goal of accompanying companies in the discussion with communities.
Due to societal pressures, investor expectations and new regulations, there is increasing pressure on mining companies to ensure operations do not cause negative social or environmental effects and bring benefits to local communities and ecosystems. Mining has been largely absent across Europe for the last few decades, receiving marginal political support as minerals are mostly imported. Yet, with the introduction of EU efforts to onshore critical mineral production, new proposed mining projects on European soil have led to diverse reactions from local actors and varying degrees of acceptance.
The following subsections will outline the key challenges for social perception and community engagement in EU mining regions and best practices for addressing these challenges.
Key challenges for social acceptance and local benefits from EU mining projects
There are various factors driving social resistance towards mining across the European Union. On the one hand, historic actions of the mining sector resulting in negative environmental impacts have hampered communities’ trust in companies and governments to protect ecosystems. On the other, a lack of information and communication between companies, governments and local actors has distorted the potential positive impacts of mining, especially in communities who have suffered past environmental challenges. Additionally, poor land-use planning can result in conflicts within a region as the interests of sectors (tourism, forestry, etc) and can impede on rights holders (Indigenous peoples), due to mining projects. Finally, a lack of clear frameworks to ensure municipalities benefit from mining through economic (e.g. jobs and local procurement) and social (investment in healthcare and education initiatives) dimensions means missed opportunities for increased local benefits and positive social perception towards new projects.
If adequate standards are not met in ensuring environmental protection and societal benefits from projects (employment, royalties, etc.), projects will likely face resistance from local communities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and rights holders, which can result in significant costs in project delays or closure. For instance, studies suggest that for mining projects with capital expenditure of between USD 3 billion and EUR 5 billion, they will suffer roughly USD 20 million per week if production is delayed (CSRM, 2014[17]). Poor relationships with local communities can also lead to poor ESG performance and reputational risk that can impact investment opportunities.
The negative historical legacy of some mining operations affects contemporary perceptions
Across the European Union, negative environmental externalities of past mining projects, including tailings pond disasters, biodiversity loss, abandoned mines and high greenhouse gas emissions, have generally created a worsening perception of the sector. A study conducted across eight EU member states2 found that the majority of respondents believe that while mining is beneficial for society, it is less beneficial or even harmful towards communities (MIREU, 2020[18]). Another study on Finland found that social acceptance of mining is gradually decreasing. Again, these respondents perceived positive economic and social benefits from mining for society but had concerns on the impacts for local communities and the environment (INFACT, 2018[19]).
Across all ten regions of this study, local governments have expressed frustration with environmental impacts from past mining projects, due to past environmental disasters or current abandoned mines. Tailings pond disasters such as at Talvivaara tailings pond in Kainuu, which polluted local waterways, has contributed significantly to public mistrust across Finland in the ability for mining companies and governments to adequately plan mining projects to ensure protection of local ecosystems (Tuomela et al., 2021[20]). Additionally, the prevalence of multiple abandoned mine sites across regions such as Alentejo in Portugal, Andalusia in Spain and Central Greece perpetuate the perception of environmental impacts, hampering regional attractiveness and deterring alternative benefits of re-using the land for other economic activities (Svobodova, Barták and Hendrychová, 2024[21]). This can create a social perception from local actors that new mining projects will have negative lasting environmental impacts.
Some regions are making positive advances in addressing environmental concerns due to mining such as mine rehabilitation efforts in Alentejo. The ten mining regions across this project are at different stages of the mine rehabilitation process and require tailored strategies to better address impacts and involve local community stakeholders in doing so. Due to poor communication of modern and more sustainable mining practices and rehabilitation efforts, some regions are left with negative perceptions of new mining projects that might not necessarily reflect reality. It is therefore essential to ensure strong communication channels between local actors and mining companies and governments.
Some local residents are supportive of mining, yet only with fair economic benefits and shared costs
There is varied support for mining from local residents in regions with mining activity across this study. In Finland, recent research on community perception of natural resource projects found that residents are mostly concerned that economic benefits from mining projects disproportionately favour large, international companies rather than benefitting local businesses. There are also calls for more decision-making power of local communities and greater balance between economic benefits from mining such as jobs and the impacts on traditional rural livelihoods and the environment (Box 5.6) (Leino et al., 2024[22]).
Other research paints a more positive picture of social perception of mining in Finland, focusing on the municipality of Sodankylä (Tulilehto and Suopajärvi, 2023[23]), where mining is fully accepted by 50.7% of respondents and provisionally by 20% (Tulilehto and Suopajärvi, 2023[23]). Acceptance was largely attributed to employment opportunities provided by mining projects with over 90% of those employed in mining in the municipality accepting mining in their local area (Tulilehto and Suopajärvi, 2023, p. 17[23]). This positive view of mining resulted in 66.3% of respondents being for the expansion of mining activities in Sodankylä. Adversely, 26.8% of respondents believe that mining reduced investment in other livelihoods – many of these respondents being primarily employed in reindeer herding or tourism – yet the majority (61.9%) of respondents believe that other livelihoods are not subject to negative impacts (Tulilehto and Suopajärvi, 2023, p. 18[23]).
In Portugal, successful examples of mine rehabilitation have positively influenced social perception of mining projects by restoring natural environments and repurposing mines for new economic development activities. The mining village of Lousal in the Iberian Pyrite Belt has been rehabilitated not only as a geological and mining heritage site, but also as a centre for education, science and technology and a tourism destination for nature, culture and heritage (SGA News, 2012[24]).
It is crucial to acknowledge this support for mining within local municipalities. Job creation and other benefits from mining such as infrastructure development and increased local revenues can bring essential prospects and development for communities. Therefore, groups operating on a national scale, such as decision-making bodies and NGOs, should not assume uniform resistance to mining across all local communities. Instead, they must ensure that all voices are heard, including those in favour of mining, to foster a balanced and inclusive approach to natural resource management that genuinely reflects the varied perspectives and needs of the local residents.
In the municipality of Inari, over 67% of respondents somewhat or completely disagreed that municipal residents have an equal opportunity to influence decision making regarding the municipality’s natural resources (Leino et al., 2024, p. 66[22]). In Heinävesi, Inari and Sodankylä, 60% of respondents either disagreed or completely disagreed with trusting the decision-making expertise and judgement in decisions related to natural resources (Leino et al., 2024, p. 69[22]). In Kaustinen, 69.4% of respondents agreed completely that the municipality must be compensated for local disadvantages of natural resource projects and 68.9% in Sodankylä (Leino et al., 2024, p. 63[22]).
Source: Leino, J. et al. (2024[22]), “We hear, but we don’t listen: Survey on sustainable use of natural resources and justice in rural Finland”, https://erepo.uef.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/355a0a05-4245-4010-a32b-1a014f39310e/content.
Land-use competition with other sectors or local interests can create opposition to mining
Intensification of mining activities across the European Union to meet demands of the CRMA creates multiple impacts on the health, environmental and socio-economic concerns of host communities, which if ineffectively managed, can lead to conflicts. The competing land uses in a given European mining region (residential and infrastructure developments, operation of other sectors and nature conservation) can have a negative impact on the available area for mineral exploration (Carvalho et al., 2021[25]). Effective land‑use planning tools are therefore important in reducing conflicts, increasing the EU mining sector’s competitiveness and ensuring access to mineral deposits.
Competition with other sectors
While many concerns related to mining are environmental, there is also conflict arising due to the socio‑economic concerns of mining, including relocation, loss of landscape/sense of place and loss of current employment, especially in other nature-based industries such as tourism (Kivinen, Kotilainen and Kumpula, 2020[26]) (Box 5.7). As discussed in the previous chapter, resource sector activities such as forestry and mining can have negative impacts on the quality of scenery and biodiversity, creating conflict with socio-cultural values and sectors relying on environmental preservation such as reindeer herding and tourism (Carvalho et al., 2021[25]).
The Environmental Justice Atlas records land-use conflicts across the globe, with information on over 4 000 conflicts reported by academics, NGOs, social activists and journalists. Of the conflicts taking place in Europe in the minerals and mining sector, the majority took place in the Balkans, the British Isles, Central Europe, Fennoscandia and the Iberian Peninsula. Many concerns relate to environmental impacts from mining. However, mining was also largely resisted because of its adverse socio-economic impacts. The most important concerns related to more than 60% of the non-energy and energy mining conflicts were land dispossession, loss of landscape/sense of place, displacement, and loss of (current) livelihood. For example, huge coal/lignite mining projects in Germany, the largest lignite producer in the world, have resulted in resettlement of tens of villages and thousands of inhabitants. Loss of livelihood is often related to loss of agricultural land and forests or declined values of the area for tourism (e.g. gold mining in the Balkans, metal mining in Fennoscandia). Other concerns were related to, for instance, increase in corruption, loss of traditional knowledge, practices and cultures and various other instabilities arising from major changes in regional socio-economic structures.
Source: Kivinen, S., J. Kotilainen and T. Kumpula (2020[26]), “Mining conflicts in the European Union: environmental and political perspectives”, https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.87223.
Indigenous land-use interests
The Indigenous Sami populations across Finland, Norway and Sweden also have unique rights and claims over traditional lands. In Norway and Sweden, the state grants exclusive reindeer herding rights to the Sámi population, which is not the case in Finland (Minority Rights Group, 2024[27]). In Finland, the new Mining Act provides significant protection for areas on and near Sámi homeland and there are currently few exploration and exploitation permits in homeland regions. However, past exploration/research projects without proper consultation allowed in Sámi homeland areas have caused unrest in the Sámi community and hampered the perception over how the mining permitting process is conducted (OHCHR, 2024[28]). This further exacerbated negative perceptions of the mining sector, emphasising the need for robust land‑use planning frameworks to avoid future conflicts.
Mining in environmentally protected areas
As discussed in the previous chapter, exploration projects or potential mines in environmentally protected areas has created an additional source of opposition towards the sector (Eerola, 2022[29]). Across many EU countries, mining permits can still be granted in environmental conservation areas including in the Natura 2000 network of nature protection areas. This is because mining projects are seen as significantly serving national interests. The ability for mining projects to undermine important environmental protections creates the impression for local communities that economic interests are prioritised over environmental commitments. Limited local consultation on these decisions can also make communities feel excluded from decisions that impact their nearby ecosystems, fostering resentment and opposition for projects. Examples of this include the Sakatti project, partly within the Viiankiaapa Mire Reserve Area (Natura 2000 area) and that was was undergoing environmental permit by the time of this repot, as well as the permission to the Cobre Las Cruces Mine to discharge wastewater into the Guadalquivir River estuary (a Natura 2000 designated area (see previous chapter) (Losada, Díez-Minguito and Reyes-Merlo, 2017[30]; Finland Angloamerican, nd[31]).
Lack of collaboration with local actors on land-use planning
If regions fail to collaborate with community stakeholders to produce a land-use plan that considers the interests of various sectors and groups, perception on the negative legacy of mining will continue. Land‑use plans are important in mining regions for before, during and after site operations, to involve local communities in decision making, maximise landscape resources and improve ecological functions (Zhang et al., 2011[32]). Currently, across many European countries, land-use planning in the context of mining operations is largely contained to assessing the mine site, failing to consider the regional impacts and involve local stakeholders in planning and decision making (Worden et al., 2024[33]).
This lack of involvement can lead to negative perceptions of mining companies and governments as destroying other sectors (tourism, forestry, reindeer herding, etc) and local environments (Natura 2000 areas) without input from the community. It can also result in lost opportunities in considering synergies between sectors and restoration of ecological habitat corridors in mine closure processes.
Lack of clear frameworks for involving municipalities and rights holders in planning early in project timelines and negotiating impacts and benefits from mining projects
Across the EU mining is perceived as positive for broader society, yet less beneficial or harmful for host communities (MIREU, 2020[18]). This is because while mining has brought infrastructure, services and employment to some regions, today, some local people not employed in the sector do not perceive the direct positive benefits from mining and rather witness only the environmental effect from the activity. For instance, a study of residents in the Finnish municipality of Sodankylä found that only 28% of respondents thought that the local economy had benefitted from mining and 30% viewed there being no such benefits. The rest of respondents were unaware of the benefits and 49% thought that mining was not essential to the vitality of the municipality (Leena, Karina and Jungsberg, 2019[34]). This perception of mining as an undesirable industry significantly contributes to resistance to new mining projects in these regions and others across the European Union.
Local taxation from mining activity
Across the European Union, there are varied approaches to the provision of taxes from mining companies to local municipalities. In most countries, taxation is collected at the national level and distributed to municipalities through various funding schemes. In others, municipalities and local governments receive direct taxation from industry activities in their area. Recently, in Finland, the new Mining Tax Act (2023) ensures tax is allocated directly to municipalities where mining occurs (Box 5.8). While this law will provide fair compensation for resource use, allowing for local governments to align revenues from mining in their areas more closely with local interests and goals, the tax comes with certain challenges. These taxations for mining companies may decrease economic competitiveness, at a time where the European Union is attempting to increase competitiveness and attract new mining projects (Leino, 2024[35]). EU member states should pay close attention to the impacts over time of this mining tax, on both local social perception of mining and the ability for regions to attract new investments.
The Finnish Mining Tax Act came into effect on 1 January 2024, introducing taxes on minerals extracted in Finland. Metallic minerals are taxed at 0.6% of their value, while non-metallic minerals are taxed at EUR 0.20 per extracted tonne. Tax revenue is split, with 60% going to local municipalities and 40% to the central government. The law applies to all minerals except gold from panning and requires mining operators to register as taxpayers by 1 March 2024.
Source: Kallio Law (2022[36]), “Legal Alert, Mining tax to be introduced in 2023 in Finland”, https://www.kalliolaw.com/news/legal-alert-mining-tax-to-be-introduced-in-2023-in-finland/.
Lack of comprehensive consultation framework
Approaches to consultation between mining companies and local communities and municipalities are uneven across the European Union. In established mining jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada, impact-benefit agreements are either required by law or are typical practice between Indigenous rights holders and mining companies (O’Faircheallaigh, 2021[37]). While outcomes of these agreements are variable, they provide a means for early consultation with communities in the aim of increasing social license to operate through protection of local interests and provision of tangible benefits to communities such as royalties, jobs and local procurement.
This same structure and process does not exist across the European Union.3 This often contributes to insufficient and rushed consultation with local communities, heightened land-use conflicts and missed opportunities to translate mining sector activities into value for local communities, therefore undermining the social licence to operate for mining companies working across the union. An important consideration in community consultation for mining projects is ensuring a variety of actors are involved early in the process, even during exploration. Across all ten regions of this project, it is currently not mandatory for mining companies or the national government to consult with municipalities during the exploration phase of projects.
Limited involvement of local actors can lead to mistrust from local stakeholders and a perception that local interests are not valued. To manage impacts and even closure plans of mine sites, local communities should be included through a collaborative approach at the exploration phase, to share information and gather priorities and expectations (Everingham et al., 2018[38]). This lack of clear framework also presents challenges for mining companies looking to invest in the European Union as approaches to consultation with each community is different and unclear. A unified legal framework to consultation that involves communities in decision making will not only improve local perception to mining but streamline processes for prospective companies.
Solutions and best practices improving social acceptance and local benefits from EU mining projects
Despite some mining companies’ long experience with community engagement activities, many of these programmes are not well known by the broader community in the region and in some cases not even by local governments. Across the ten EU regions in the study, a common finding was the lack of promotion from companies and governments of the ESG activities in the region.
Additionally, as mentioned above, EU countries do not have common policies to negotiate benefit-sharing agreements between companies and local communities, nor common ESG guidelines for mining companies operating across member states. A unified negotiation framework for impact-benefit agreements, such as that mandated in Australia, and greater guidance on streamlining ESG activities for regional development would ensure a more simplified process of interaction between mining companies and local communities.
Improving communication
Many of the social perception issues related to mining such as environmental concerns, land-use conflicts and ineffective consultation with local communities require regional authorities to strengthen their involvement of and communication with a variety of local actors. This could be focused across two major areas: i) learning activities to address misconceptions and disinformation about mining; and ii) community involvement and communication in solving environmental liabilities from legacy mines.
Learning activities to address misconceptions and disinformation about mining
Addressing misinformation requires co‑ordination between public and private sectors. The negative environmental impacts of past mining projects have created a perception of mining that does not necessarily accurately reflect modern day practices. While mining still consumes vast amounts of energy and resources and contributes to climate change, modern mining techniques are consistently evolving to implement mitigation strategies often focused around reducing energy consumption through the use of electric vehicles and renewable energy sources.4 For instance, Canadian mining company Goldcorp is investing in R&D and adopting newer, greener technologies to advance towards green mining with its electrification effort expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% (Onifade et al., 2024[39]). To heighten the awareness of modern mining practices, the regional government can increase communication through linking these activities with regional development plans and goals and adequately mapping and communicating the positive environmental and social impacts of a particular mining project to local actors.
Co‑ordinating with companies to provide interactive education for young people regarding modern mining practices can also assist in shifting social perception and improving attractiveness of the sector for future employees. The use of social media and video games can help generate interest and excitement amongst young people in learning about geology and the importance of mining for society. For instance, in Portugal, the national government has teamed up with Minecraft to introduce students to geology, engineering and other fields.
School in Portugal are using Minecraft as an innovative tool to introduce students to geology, engineering and other related fields. While not specifically focused on mining, the programme helps students explore the country’s geography and landmarks in a hands-on way, developing skills like problem solving, teamwork and project planning. By learning to use in-game commands and understanding game mechanics, students also get a taste of the technologies behind real-world industries. Engaging kids early through creative tools like Minecraft sparks their curiosity and lays the groundwork for a future workforce in mining, engineering and related disciplines.
Source: Minecraft Education (2017[40]), Minepark – Building Portugal, https://education.minecraft.net/en-us/lessons/minepark-building-portugal.
Establishing curriculum programmes in schools or learning activities to educate youth about modern mining practices is a vital step in addressing the growing mistrust toward the mining sector. These programmes can provide young people with an understanding of advancements in mining technologies, sustainability measures and the importance of critical raw materials to society, especially the green transition. By highlighting how modern mining practices prioritise environmental protection, resource efficiency and social responsibility, these initiatives can counteract negative perceptions and foster an informed future generation.
Including interactive elements, such as site visits to rehabilitated mines or workshops with industry experts, can further build local trust and increase interest in young people to work in the sector. For instance, in Örebro, the Metals4U+ programme was established to address misconceptions around mining and provide education on the origins and uses of metals and minerals. The project is driven by company Bergskraft and includes a learning portal with educational materials and a podcast series. It is scheduled to end in 2025, presenting opportunities for continued support for this programme or a similar initiative to address misconceptions about mining in Sweden and across the European Union (Sartz, 2020[41]).
Community involvement and communication in solving environmental liabilities from mining
Rehabilitation of legacy mines is essential for improving social perception of mining. Across the ten EU regions of this project, the rate of mine site rehabilitation varies, with some regions advancing considerably on reclamation efforts and others lagging. Addressing environmental concerns from legacy mines is essential to repair the historical damage caused by abandoned sites and past disasters, restoring the reputation of the industry and improving social perception. Targeted environmental restoration programmes, such as cleaning polluted waterways or repurposing old mining areas for tourism or conservation projects demonstrates a commitment to sustainability and provides alternatives for economic benefits for regions affected by mining’s historical environmental impacts. Some regions across the European Union are already making headway in these areas (Box 5.10).
The National Company of Mining Development (EDM) in Portugal has made progress in the rehabilitation of abandoned mining areas, focusing on transforming 175 sites, including 61 radioactive mineral sites and 114 polymetallic sulphide mines. Funded through royalties from Portuguese mining operators and the EU Cohesion Fund, these efforts have earned recognition for their environmental impact and the positive transformation of mining legacies. Continuous scientific monitoring ensures the long-term success of remediation, while collaborations with institutions like the University of Coimbra bring cutting-edge expertise to the process.
Finland’s Pyhäsalmi Mine has been repurposed as the Callio Lab, a globally unique multidisciplinary operating environment. Located in Europe’s deepest active hard rock mine, the laboratory supports underground research, training and R&D, particularly in physics experiments requiring large rock overburdens. This model highlights how rehabilitated mines can serve as platforms for innovation, offering unique opportunities for science, commercial activities and sustainable development.
Sources: IMWA (2016[42]), “Environmental remediation of abandoned mines in Portugal – Balance of 15 years of activity and new perspectives”, https://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2016/IMWA2016_Carvalho_142.pdf; Callio Lab (2024[43]), About Callio Lab, https://calliolab.com/welcome-to-callio-lab/callio-lab/.
In carrying out environmental rehabilitation of abandoned mines, community involvement and communication of good practices with local actors is key. Regardless of the stage at which a region is carrying out mine site rehabilitation, communication with a variety of local stakeholders is essential in building trust and improving social perception of the industry. While typical mine rehabilitation that takes a top-down, technocratic and rationalist approach can yield important results, attention needs to be paid to wider interests and the values of local stakeholders including land users (those expected to manage and own post-mining landscapes), rights holders (Indigenous peoples), subnational governments, civil society organisations and local businesses (Everingham et al., 2018[38]).
Participatory decision making, responsible stewardship, and enhanced communication channels from mining companies and national governments towards local actors about mine rehabilitation can better ensure that post-mine land uses meet community goals. For instance, studies found that in Queensland, Australia, farmer participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives regarding nearby coal mines ensure that land management options are acceptable from multiple perspectives, providing other land users with a sense of control over their local environment. This involvement also provides valuable insights for companies and governments to manage the indirect consequences from proposed economic activities (de Krom, 2017[44]).
Co‑ordination across regions and with nation and EU-level authorities can help disseminate information. Clear communication from companies about their environmental restoration efforts is important in improving social perception of mining and attracting quality employees. This requires a communication strategy that consistently provides clear information to the widest variety of local stakeholders. Co‑ordinated efforts across regions and with national and EU-level authorities can be particularly impactful to improve a common understanding of mining effects. 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 Finnish Mining Industry Association (Kaivosteollisuus). The pilot project helps to understand community polarisation in regard to mining, address misconceptions and provide actions to enhance information sharing and transparency.
Companies can also utilise local media outlets to communicate with local stakeholders. The use of local media can play an important role in shaping public opinion at the local level and can become an effective means of conveying messages from mining companies on project updates, environmental restoration activities or consultation opportunities (Zulfatun Mahmudah, 2022[45]). There is an opportunity for mining companies and subnational governments to utilise these outlets through avenues such as creating a column in the local newspaper or a scheduled social media post to popular local accounts to share recent updates on mining operations and environmental restoration efforts including how local residents can be involved. For instance, PT Kaltim Prima Coal in Indonesia uses social media as well as co‑operation with local media to share with the public the good mining practices carried out and monitor trends in public perception towards company activities (Zulfatun Mahmudah, 2022[45]).
Strengthening local participation and consultation
To strengthen social license to operate, EU mining projects also require improved consultation and participation frameworks with local actors and rights holders (Indigenous peoples) and joint land-use practices to better co‑ordinate mining operations with broader local interests and values.
Strengthening consultation with and involvement of local stakeholders in mining
In most EU countries, approval of mining projects requires the formal opinion of municipalities during mine permitting processes and local land-use plans. While this is an important step to involve local governments early in project decision making, it often does not adequately involve a broader range of stakeholders including local community members.
Due to widespread mistrust of mining corporations and governments in favouring projects over local needs, companies and the public sector need to create further provisions to ensure views from local communities are considered in mining decision making. To this end, EU regional governments can establish multi-actor governance structures for mining, support a more standardised consultation process and enhance their involvement in promoting stronger local agreements with mining companies.
First, OECD mining regions, such as Antofagasta, have created multi-actor governance structures to involve community representatives in the formulation of the regional mining policies and the monitoring of its outcomes, which has helped agree on common views and strategic projects from mining companies (Box 5.11).
Antofagasta’s mining strategy, launched in October 2022, included a governance mechanism involving different local stakeholders to prioritise projects, decide on how best to implement them and monitor their results until 2050. This mechanism includes various regional stakeholders to ensure the strategy lasts beyond political cycles, through the following:
An executive secretariat represented by a government official, with a defined budget and team for operation and co-ordination.
A steering committee that prioritises and monitors projects, and proposes new strategy orientations. It comprises different regional actors with a periodic rotation, including representatives from the regional or municipal Civil Society Council, Indigenous Development Areas, large mining companies, small and medium-sized mining companies and academia.
The technical committee in charge of structuring and finding operators for the strategic projects, providing updates on the progress of the project and budget, and responding to other requests from the steering committee.
Source: (OECD, 2023[46])
Second, establishing more standardised approaches to consultation could help address community resistance to projects. A simplified and uniform approach to mineral resource governance could guide and clarify provision of benefits to municipalities such as royalties, employment and local procurement. At the regional level, this includes standardising consultation processes across municipalities. At the EU level, a uniform approach to mining consultation across member states could assist with implementation of the CRMA and increase competitiveness of the region.
Third, in the European Union, local agreements with companies are less common than in other countries. For many municipalities in these regions, mining is either new or has not been a relevant economic focus in the last decades. Therefore, there is a lack of clear frameworks to partner with these companies as well as lack of clarity regarding the type of agreements that can be implemented. While national – or provincial in the case of federal countries – governments are the main bodies responsible for agreements with companies, any benefit-sharing agreements should benefit from local government and community participation to ensure they address their priorities. In many OECD mining regions, these agreements have generated local benefits in terms of infrastructure, local economic support and environmental compensation.
At the same time, agreements directly signed with landowners or local municipalities would benefit from involvement of or consultation with regional governments to ensure alignment with regional priorities and evaluation in the long term.
Participatory land-use plans to balance mining with other land-use priorities
Developing regional-specific land-use plans is essential to balance mining activities with other land-use priorities and identify synergies between industries in EU mining regions. For instance, in areas like Lapland, where mining coexists with forestry, reindeer herding, tourism and environmentally protected areas, tailored land-use strategies can mitigate conflicts and foster coexistence (Sarkki et al., 2018[47]). By aligning mining activities with the needs of nature-based industries and environmental conservation, such plans can safeguard scenic values critical to tourism and cultural heritage essential to local communities.
These strategies should include transparent stakeholder engagement to ensure their socio-economic and cultural priorities are integrated into planning. Furthermore, leveraging synergies such as using post-mine sites for tourism or biodiversity projects can enhance community acceptance, reduce delays caused by local opposition and increase the competitiveness of the mining sector while preserving regional sustainability.
For instance, in Central Greece, the mining industry and tourism co‑operate to deliver local value to the regional economy. Vagonetto Fokis Mining Park is a unique cultural and industrial heritage site that is built on the site of an old bauxite mine. The park allows visitors to follow the lives of miners, visiting a real underground gallery. Trains transport visitors through the tunnels providing exhibitions of mining history as well as interactive digital technology. The site has also benefitted from EU investment such as an upgrade of the museum audio guide digital system into six languages (Vagonetto, 2024[48]). Additionally, the Hellenic Survey of Geology and Mineral Exploration has established a museum in Athens to educate young people on the history and importance of minerals for important functions in society (National Geological Museum of Greece, 2021[49]).
In sum
Social resistance to mining across the European Union is a key barrier to meeting the goals of the CRMA. There are several common challenges relating to social acceptance from local communities of existing and new mining projects. These include:
negative historical legacy of some mining operations due to environmental and social harm
historical lack of economic benefits from mining projects for local communities
land-use competition between mining and other sectors/local interests
lack of clear frameworks for municipal involvement and consultation regarding mining projects.
Despite these challenges, national and regional governments, companies and local actors can enhance community engagement and improve social acceptance of mining through:
Improving communication, including activities to address misconceptions around mining: Regions can play a key role in raising awareness amongst local actors regarding new sustainable mining practices as well as activities to address environmental harm/abandoned mines. Regions can also work with mining companies to engage local media and education campaigns to counter misconceptions, highlight sustainable practices and building trust in modern mining methods.
Ensuring early community participation and streamlined consultation processes for projects: Regions can work towards establishing clear frameworks for early and ongoing engagement with communities, ensuring local perspectives are integrated into decision making. This includes investing in capabilities for negotiating impact-benefit agreements that represent community interests through fair revenue sharing, job creation, procurement opportunities and other programmes.
While the CRMA does not include a dedicated implementation budget, the European Commission emphasises that existing support mechanisms should be systematically directed to support CRMA implementation. Collaboration among regional authorities, innovation sectors and the business ecosystem can be instrumental to leverage available financial resources and funding opportunities to improve conditions for mining projects.
Challenges for regions to efficiently use funding mechanisms to support the implementation of the CRMA
There are a number of structural and co‑ordination challenges for regions to use funding mechanisms efficiently to support the implementation of the CRMA:
Distinct governance models exist across EU member states concerning financing and implementing cohesion policies, which may be centralised or decentralised. This variation influences the extent of regional authority in determining the allocation of cohesion policy funds. Additionally, regional authorities’ operational procedures can differ significantly. These factors collectively impact the degree to which regional authorities or governments can exercise their decision-making power and shape the regional financial landscapes.
Projects related to the raw material value chain are not consistently prioritised within regional development programmes or strategies. This could be due to a lack of capacity or skills to recognise the potential of emerging possibilities in new business development or regional research, development and innovation (RDI). For example, most of the regional authorities of the ten EU regions analysed fall short in recognising the potential for developing SME-driven emerging industries to provide industrial services to improve industrial symphysis and circularity.
Complementary approaches between different funding schemes are often absent. While regional authorities and innovation ecosystem actors recognise the potential for utilising various complementary funds, these are not systematically explored. For example, in implementing smart specialisation strategies, the focus is often only on utilising the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) but collaborative approaches for using other EU funding possibilities are less common. Part of this partial use of funding sources is also explained by a lack of knowledge about the mechanism to accessing them and the available capacity to navigate the bureaucracy.
A common understanding among regional authorities, industries, RDI organisations and universities is often missing in prioritising projects and, thus, relevant funding targets. Despite the academic orientation of many innovation projects, collaboration is predominantly confined to large-scale industries, with regional partners engaging only briefly within these projects.
Using available funding mechanisms to support CRMA implementation
Navigating and comprehending the funding mechanisms requires considerable effort. As a preliminary step, regional authorities must thoroughly understand their innovation ecosystems, including their operational dynamics and key stakeholders (Chapter 4). Generally, innovation ecosystems comprise individuals or organisations dedicated to innovation, encompassing the interconnections between resources (such as funds, equipment and facilities), organisations (such as higher education institutions, research and technology organisations, companies, venture capitalists and financial intermediaries), investors and policy makers.
Mapping the funding mechanisms for regions to implement CRMA-related projects requires a systematic approach and shared responsibilities that combines EU, national and private funding sources. Based on discussion with beneficiary regions, Figure 5.1 outlines an approach where different funding mechanisms or programmes can be used complementarily to support strategic goals in the regional mining ecosystem, beyond solely relying on EU funds.
In this framework, EU funding programmes intended to boost innovation capacity, e.g. Horizon Europe and Erasmus+, can be complemented with different funds to enhance conditions and capacity of the different stakeholders in the mining ecosystem. For example, national or regional cohesion funds can help boost entrepreneurial capacity and upskill regional workforces, while private sources – InvestEU and European Investment Bank funds – can directly support SMEs and local businesses to gain innovation capacity and links to integrate mining value chains.
In addition, given the cross-border nature of mining projects and value chains, specific funding programmes can also support national and international co‑operation. This is particularly important in implementing the CRMA, where industrial value chains extend beyond borders. For example, new collaboration practices within the region (such as clusters) or international regional co‑operation can be fostered through Interreg programmes, Interregional Innovation Investments, Thematic Smart Specialisation Partnerships or European Digital Innovation Hubs.
As mentioned in this report, enhancing the utilisation of upstream and downstream synergies is a key strategy for achieving a more substantial impact on local economies. Regions have scope to further link the value chain in ERDF and Horizon Europe project applications, to maximise the benefits of available funding programmes.
Using the ERDF and Horizon Europe in a co‑ordinated manner could support innovation across the value chain. The ERDF could be used to enhance the regional conditions for innovation, including enabling skills and infrastructure, and test products for commercialisation, while Horizon Europe programmes provide the targeted funds for R&D (Figure 5.2).
The co‑ordinated approach focuses on what can be done at the regional level. This is based on transparent and agreed-upon practices within regional innovation ecosystems, supported by strong inter-regional collaboration. Measures can be taken to increase the use of upstream and downstream synergies. This means further utilising the results of Horizon Europe projects through the ERDF and other cohesion funds. This could be done by making it a condition in Horizon Europe calls and evaluating it thoroughly. These synergies should be considered when creating and implementing smart specialisation strategies, in collaboration with key regional actors in the innovation ecosystem. The implementation plan for smart specialisation strategies should consider the use of the ERDF and agree on how to use Horizon Europe and other funds directly managed by the EU. Fostering synergies requires strategic thinking and building on common understanding among the actors in the regional innovation ecosystem.
The ERDF helps build capacity for RDI and industry at the regional level. This can improve the chances of receiving more competitive Horizon Europe funding, for upstream synergies. An RDI organisation might develop an innovative environment that provides services to industries that will help increase their technology‑readiness level. The Horizon Europe project can be further developed and demonstrated through EU-level collaboration in specific business cases.
On the other hand, ERDF funding can advance Horizon Europe projects’ deliverables within the regional innovation ecosystem, for downstream synergies. For instance, if a consortium develops an innovative technology and prototypes it in a Horizon Europe project, regional partners might want to test the prototype under specific conditions. They could apply for ERDF funding to conduct this pilot through a living lab practice.
Source: Landabaso, M. (2021[50]), Exploring Synergies Between Horizon Europe and Region-Al Policy Stoa Workshop Panel for the Future of Science and Technology, Joint Research Centre.
Translating industrial needs into regional strategies and funding schemes for emerging SMEs and RDI growth requires an integrated approach that connects upstream and downstream activities, addressing new socio-economic challenges and opportunities. Building a mining regional innovation ecosystem involves multi‑level, multi-stakeholder dialogue, emphasising public engagement and awareness.
A systematic approach with robust inter-regional collaboration among regional authorities and ecosystem actors is essential. Regions should work towards a unified approach, learning from best practices in other areas to support the creation and implementation of investment models for an environmentally sustainable raw material sector, which is crucial for optimising the use of financial resources in a complementary manner.
Regions can also leverage new EU support initiatives for EU competitiveness. This is the case of the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) that supports EU industry and boosts investment in critical technologies, focusing on mobilising 11 EU programmes to support critical technologies and skills. Mining regions should develop regional and inter-regional collaborations in alignment with these initiatives. It is important to note that STEP is also a pathway to the future European Competitiveness Fund, which aims to pool resources from various EU funding programmes beyond 2028.
STEP is an EU initiative to support and invest in important technologies that are crucial for the European Union’s future. It focuses on three main areas: digital technologies, clean and resource-efficient technologies and biotechnologies. The goal of STEP is to boost innovation and competitiveness in these areas by providing funding and support to projects and organisations. It also encourages collaboration between different regions and sectors to make the most of existing resources and capabilities. The CRMA is included as one strategic policy areas, whose related-projects can benefit from different support:
Funding and investment: STEP will channel resources from various EU funding programmes to support projects that align with the goals of the CRMA. This includes investing in technologies and processes that enhance the extraction, processing and recycling of critical raw materials. This will also include the cohesion funds, where members state or regions can allocate a specific amount to support a region-specific action in line with the CRMA and STEP.
Innovation and collaboration: By fostering innovation and encouraging collaboration between different regions and sectors, STEP will help develop new methods and technologies for managing critical raw materials. This includes promoting R&D in areas such as digital technologies, clean and resource-efficient technologies and biotechnologies.
Capacity building: STEP will support capacity‑building initiatives to ensure that regions and industries have the necessary skills and infrastructure to implement the CRMA effectively. This includes training programmes and apprenticeships focused on critical technologies.
Strategic planning: STEP will help integrate the objectives of the CRMA into regional and national strategic plans, ensuring that efforts to secure critical raw materials are co‑ordinated and aligned with broader EU industrial policies and projects can benefit from cumulative funding under several EU instruments.
By leveraging these mechanisms, STEP aims to enhance EU resilience and reduce dependencies on external sources of critical raw materials, thereby supporting the successful implementation of the CRMA.
Source: (European Commission, 2025[51])
In sum
To improve the use of funding to support the CRMA implementation at the regional level, regional governments should:
Understand their innovation ecosystems, including their operational dynamics and key stakeholders.
Leverage the ERDF and Horizon Europe in a co‑ordinated manner to support innovation across the value chain, with the ERDF being useful to enhance regional conditions for innovation while Horizon Europe programmes targeting funds for research and innovation development.
Promote complementary use of funds at the regional level to maximise the regional innovation ecosystem’s capacity to engage in raw material value chains. For example, the projects implemented by the Geological Survey of Finland, the Iberian Sustainable Mining Cluster and the Associação Cluster Portugal Mineral Resource are being carried out synergistically and collaboratively to make the most of inter-regional co‑operation.
Work towards a unified approach, learning from best practices in other areas to support the creation and implementation of investment models for an environmentally sustainable raw material sector.
Foresee the systematic approach to develop regional and inter-regional collaborations in alignment with STEP initiatives to maximise available funding in line with the CRMA.
A participatory and long-term monitoring framework of mining projects and strategies is another cornerstone that requires government co‑ordination to ensure positive effects of mining in communities. Monitoring is relevant to anticipate and mitigate environmental impacts from mining, but also ensure mining-related policy strategies achieve the expected outcomes. If mining projects can last 50 or 100 years in operation, their tailings and infrastructures last for ever. Environmental effects from these operations, such as tailings’ management, can take a long time to be evident on land or water shields. On the other hand, mining national and regional strategies, as any other development strategy, require time to attain their goals. For instance, strategies that aim at fostering innovation in the mining value chain and upscaling local providers can require several years to make evident the positive outcomes in the economy.
When it comes to monitoring mining projects, the industry is often obliged to self-monitor and issue frequent reports. Across EU member states, this is done through mandatory reporting requirements and alignment with international standards of responsible mining. These mining legislation reporting requirements require mining companies to report data related to environmental impacts, resource use and compliance with sustainability standards. Mining projects are also asked by governments and communities to align with international responsible mining standards, like the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains and the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources, a tool designed for standardised classification and reporting (Box 5.13).
The United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) is a universal system for classifying and reporting resources such as minerals, energy and raw materials, offering a standardised approach to ensure consistency, transparency and sustainability in resource management across sectors and countries.
In the context of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), the UNFC is essential for the assessment of strategic raw material projects. As part of the CRMA application process for Strategic Project recognition, project promoters must classify their initiatives using the UNFC framework. This system applies a consistent methodology based on three dimensions: environmental-socio-economic viability, technical feasibility and confidence in resource estimates. By standardising project evaluations, the UNFC facilitates comparisons and enables the European Commission to pinpoint strengths, gaps and improvement opportunities in project proposals.
Additionally, UNFC supports ongoing project monitoring, ensuring progress aligns with sustainability objectives. The framework emphasises sustainable resource management, technical maturity and reliability, aligning with the CRMA’s goal of establishing a responsible and resilient supply of critical raw materials. To further streamline its application, training programmes and guidance documents assist projects in adopting UNFC effectively, ensuring consistency in evaluations across all strategic projects.
Source: UNECE (2024[52]), “Training on United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) Application to strategic projects in accordance with the EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA)”, https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/events/training-united-nations-framework-classification-resources-unfc.
Single mining projects also go beyond mandatory reporting and adopt private standards that measure the overall ESG compliance of the project. They include Towards a Sustainable Mining Standard applied in Finland, Copper Mark for copper projects or the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance’s standard. The former is a third-party assessment of industrial-scale mine sites for all mined materials.
Self-monitoring data and reports are subject to third-party audits and governmental review, ensuring reliability and adherence to regulatory requirements. Non-compliance or false reporting can lead to fines, operational restrictions or reputational damage under EU directives, such as the Environmental Liability Directive.
Common challenges for a proper monitoring of these projects include:
Human capacity constrains to monitor and prevent risks in mining projects is challenging given the remoteness and sparsity of the projects as well as workforce shortages in many some countries. In regions such as Alentejo, Andalusia or Central Greece, the sparsity and small scale of the quarries makes the monitoring of the projects a costly action that requires onsite staff and important commuting. In Central Greece, there are fewer than four staff members to monitor mining safety across all the region (OECD, 2024[53]). Monitoring authorities in some countries, especially the ones that are delocalised in regions also suffer from lack of workforce given the structural demographic challenges discussed in Chapter 2 and the competition for salaries against mining or other better-paid industries.
Technological and knowledge capacity of public agencies is also a bottleneck, as it requires considerable investment to access best available technologies- including visualisation and analytical devices- to monitor and predict effects on the environment. Technological innovation in mining industry tends to move faster than in the government authorities, which also add issues in keeping up with new extraction methods and potential effects.
Political or strategic shifts in governments can affect the budget dedicated to monitoring. Such changes in priorities were one of the main hold backs for mining development in EU during the last decades. Before the CRMA, many countries had decreased the political and financial support for mining, leading to underfunded geological national institutes, little geological research and promotion and lack of long-term mining-related strategies, such as in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
Reactivity and bureaucratic delays are also a common challenge for monitoring systems of resource industries. Translating findings of the monitoring process into corrective actions require time and overcoming bureaucratic decision-making processes. This can result in environmental damage before appropriate interventions are made. CRMA’s support to strategic projects prioritises those that offer high standards of transparency and sustainability in their operations.
The reliance and reports of some international standards for responsible mining have faced credibility issues due to the dominance of mining industry in the decision board of the standards. This is the case of the Towards Sustainable Mining standard in Finland, where communities disengaged in the scheme due to concerns of lack of participation.
In this context, strengthening monitoring systems for mining projects and strategies requires a combination of sustained and log-term financial resources, transparent and accessible information supported by community participation. To this end, regional governments could support monitoring actions across at least four areas:
First, supporting the development of multi-stakeholder systems to monitor goals of mining strategies and mining impacts. Involving different actors of the society to monitor and help attain goals of mining-related strategies can help to maintain efforts for long-term goals and evaluate adjustments of strategies to reach final outcomes, regardless of the political cycles and changes. As mentioned in previous chapters, the community can also participate in monitoring activities of mining operations. Opportunities for this type of involvement should be agreed with and co-promoted by the mining company. For example, at the Neves-Corvo ming in Alentejo, Sominor has established a multi-stakeholder monitoring system that actively involves the local community. Community members play a key role by providing feedback through surveys and engagement activities, which is analysed and insights are gathered then integrated into the mine’s strategies, directly influencing operations to promote responsible and sustainable practices. By fostering transparency and accountability, this system strengthens the relationship between the mine and the community, ensuring long-term trust and collaboration (Alves, 2022[54]).
Second, promoting traceability of mining that are publicly accessible and understandable. It involves setting transparent and open reports of the results in the monitoring processes.
Finnish Minerals Group is actively advancing the traceability of minerals through research and development initiatives. In partnership with Circulor, a leading traceability solutions provider, the group is enhancing transparency in the raw materials supply chain. This focus on traceability ensures greater accountability, promotes sustainable practices, and strengthens the competitiveness of raw material production in Europe (Finnish Minerals Group, 2021[55]).
Ensure appropriate staff and technical capacity in public authorities to monitor impacts of mining with clear frequency, particularly in remote rural communities.
Beralt Tin and Wolfram, operator of the Panasqueira mine in Portugal, provides an example of ensuring adequate staff and technical capacity in public authorities to monitor mining impacts in remote rural communities. The company collaborates with local municipalities like Fundão and Covilhã to manage infrastructure and environmental impacts, supports public authorities with technical expertise in geology and mining operations, and ensures regular updates to the geological database. These efforts enable consistent monitoring with clear frequency and improve authorities’ capacity to address mining-related challenges effectively. (Ferraz and Pinto, 2019[56])
Lastly, establish a whistleblower mechanism for mining, as a formalised system that allows individuals, including employees, contractors, community members or other stakeholders, to report unethical, illegal or unsafe practices within the mining sector anonymously or confidentially. These mechanisms are designed to improve transparency, accountability, and adherence to laws, environmental standards and human rights within the mining industry.
Glencore exemplifies a strong commitment to whistleblowing through its Raising Concerns and Whistleblowing Policy, which includes multiple reporting channels, options for anonymous reporting, protection against retaliation, and a pledge to investigate concerns promptly and objectively (Glencore, 2024[57]). While Glencore and similar companies lead in implementing robust mechanisms, all EU-based companies with 50 or more employees are required to establish whistleblowing systems under the EU Whistleblower Directive.
References
[54] Alves, J. (2022), Sustainable and responsible mining based on Lundin Mining Corporation’s Subsidiary, Somincor, Faculty of Engineering - University of Porto, https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/142701/3/571822.pdf.
[43] Callio Lab (2024), About Callio Lab, https://calliolab.com/welcome-to-callio-lab/callio-lab/.
[25] Carvalho, J. et al. (2021), “A look at European practices for identifying mineral resources that deserve to be safeguarded in land-use planning”, Resources Policy, Vol. 74, p. 102248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102248.
[17] CSRM (2014), The costs of conflict with local communities, University of Queensland Centre for Social Responsibility, https://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/media/docs/145/Cost_of_Conflict_with_Local_Communities_in_Extractive_Industry_Davis_Franks_2011.pdf.
[44] de Krom, M. (2017), “Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: Regionalisation and the role of bridging social capital”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 60, pp. 352-361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.026.
[1] Domínguez-Gómez, J. and T. González-Gómez (2021), “Governance in mining: Management, ethics, sustainability and efficiency”, The Extractive Industries and Society, Vol. 8/3, p. 100910, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2021.100910.
[12] EC (2017), Study – Legal Framework for mineral extraction and permitting procedures for exploration and exploitation in the EU, European Commission, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/18c19395-6dbf-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
[29] Eerola, T. (2022), “Corporate conduct, commodity and place: Ongoing mining and mineral exploration disputes in Finland and their implications for the social license to operate”, Resources Policy, Vol. 76, p. 102568, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102568.
[8] EIT RawMaterials (nd), About EIT RawMaterials, https://eitrawmaterials.eu/about-us (Accessed on May 2025).
[3] Ernst & Young (2022), Top 10 business risks and opportunities for mining and metals in 2022, https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/mining-metals/ey-final-business-risks-and-opportunities-in-2022.pdf.
[14] Euronews (2023), “Portugal wants to exploit its lithium reserves. But at what cost to the environment?”, https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/09/portugal-wants-to-exploit-its-lithium-reserves-but-at-what-cost-to-the-environment.
[51] European Commission (2025), Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform, https://strategic-technologies.europa.eu/about_en (accessed on May 2025).
[6] European Commission (nd), EU Missions in Horizon Europe, https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe_en (accessed on May 2025).
[38] Everingham, J. et al. (2018), “A proposal for engaging a stakeholder panel in planning post-mining land uses in Australia’s coal-rich tropical savannahs”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 79, pp. 397-406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.038.
[56] Ferraz, P. and F. Pinto (2019), Geology and mining at the Panasqueira W-Sn deposit, https://www.semineral.es/websem/PdfServlet?mod=archivos&subMod=publicaciones&archivo=Seminarios-RONDA-2019p23-32.pdf.
[31] Finland Angloamerican (nd), AA Sakatti Mining Oy, https://finland.angloamerican.com/en/about-sakatti (Accessed on May 2025).
[55] Finnish Minerals Group (2021), Finnish Minerals Group and Circulor to collaborate on mineral traceability, https://www.mineralsgroup.fi/topical/news/finnish-minerals-group-and-circulor-to-collaborate-on-mineral-traceability.html.
[10] Fraser Institute (2024), Annual Survey of Mining Comanpies 2023.
[57] Glencore (2024), Raising concerns and Whistleblowing policy, https://www.glencore.com/.rest/api/v1/documents/static/78fa1ac5-6e00-46d4-8099-b54dff1336dd/Raising+Concerns+and+Whistleblowing+Policy_English.pdf.
[13] Green European Journal (2024), Covas do Barroso: Local Resistance to Europe’s Lithium Race, https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/covas-do-barroso-local-resistance-to-europes-lithium-race/ (accessed on May 2025).
[42] IMWA (2016), “Environmental remediation of abandoned mines in Portugal – Balance of 15 years of activity and new perspectives”, International Mine Water Association, https://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2016/IMWA2016_Carvalho_142.pdf.
[19] INFACT (2018), THE REPUTATION OF MINING AND EXPLORATION FROM A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE.
[36] Kallio Law (2022), “Legal Alert, Mining tax to be introduced in 2023 in Finland”, https://www.kalliolaw.com/news/legal-alert-mining-tax-to-be-introduced-in-2023-in-finland/.
[5] Kaustisen Seutu (nd), Kaustisen Seutu, https://kaustisenseutu.fi/ (Accessed on May 2025).
[26] Kivinen, S., J. Kotilainen and T. Kumpula (2020), “Mining conflicts in the European Union: environmental and political perspectives”, Fennia - International Journal of Geography, Vol. 198/1-2, pp. 163-179, https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.87223.
[50] Landabaso, M. (2021), Exploring Synergies Between Horizon Europe and Region-Al Policy Stoa Workshop Panel for the Future of Science and Technology, Joint Research Centre.
[34] Leena, S., U. Karina and L. Jungsberg (2019), “Social license to operate in the frame of social capital exploring local acceptance of mining in two rural municipalities in the European North”, Resources Policy, Vol. 64, p. 101498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101498.
[35] Leino, J. (2024), “Claiming for justice in transitions: Analyzing the multidimensional and multiscalar complexity of justice in the context of Mining Act reform in Finland”, The Extractive Industries and Society, Vol. 19, p. 101501, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2024.101501.
[22] Leino, J. et al. (2024), “We hear, but we don’t listen: Survey on sustainable use of natural resources and justice in rural Finland”, Reports and studies in social sciences and business studies, University of Eastern Finland, https://erepo.uef.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/355a0a05-4245-4010-a32b-1a014f39310e/content.
[30] Losada, M., Díez-Minguito and Reyes-Merlo (2017), Tidal-fluvial interaction in the Guadalquivir River Estuary: Spatial and frequency-dependent response of currents and water levels, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 122, 847–865,, http://doi:10.1002/2016JC011984.
[7] M-ERA.NET (nd), About M-ERA.NET, https://www.m-era.net/ (accessed on May 2025).
[40] Minecraft Education (2017), Minepark – Building Portugal, https://education.minecraft.net/en-us/lessons/minepark-building-portugal.
[27] Minority Rights Group (2024), Sami in Finland.
[18] MIREU (2020), MIREU Survey Results: Perceptions of Mining in Europe Summary Report, https://mireu.eu/system/files/2020-09/MIREU%20Survey%20results%3A%20Perceptions%20of%20Mining%20in%20Europe_2020-09-21_2727.pdf.
[9] MIREU (n.d.), MIREU, https://mireu.eu/.
[49] National Geological Museum of Greece (2021), National Geological Museum.
[53] OECD (2024), OECD field visit to Central Greece, https://reform-support.ec.europa.eu/publications-0/enhancing-eu-mining-regional-ecosystems-support-green-transition-and-secure-mineral-raw-materials_en.
[46] OECD (2023), Mining Regions and Cities in the Region of Antofagasta, Chile: Towards a Regional Mining Strategy, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/336e2d2f-en.
[2] OECD (2022), 2022 Synthesis Report World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b80a8cdb-en.
[37] O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2021), “Explaining outcomes from negotiated agreements in Australia and Canada”, Resources Policy, Vol. 70, p. 101922, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101922.
[28] OHCHR (2024), Finland must respect the rights of Sámi Indigenous people to traditional lands: UN Committees find, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/10/finland-must-respect-rights-sami-indigenous-people-traditional-lands-un.
[39] Onifade, M. et al. (2024), “Advancing toward sustainability: The emergence of green mining technologies and practices”, Green and Smart Mining Engineering, Vol. 1/2, pp. 157-174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsme.2024.05.005.
[15] Proactive (2022), “Elementos reiterated a buy after Andalucían Government names Oropesa as a significant mining project”, https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/977279/elementos-reiterated-a-buy-after-andalucian-government-names-oropesa-as-a-significant-mining-project-977279.html.
[58] Raitio, K., C. Allard and R. Lawrence (2020), “Mineral extraction in Swedish Sápmi: The regulatory gap between Sami rights and Sweden’s mining permitting practices”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 99, p. 105001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105001.
[47] Sarkki, S. et al. (2018), “Myths on local use of natural resources and social equity of land use governance: Reindeer herding in Finland”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 77, pp. 322-331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.055.
[41] Sartz, L. (2020), Metals4U.
[24] SGA News (2012), Lousal, Portugal: a successful example.
[21] Svobodova, K., V. Barták and M. Hendrychová (2024), “Visiting mine reclamation: How field experience shapes perceptions of mining”, Ambio, Vol. 54/1, pp. 72-85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02055-y.
[23] Tulilehto, M. and L. Suopajärvi (2023), Experienced impacts of mining in Sodankylä: Follow-up study.
[20] Tuomela, A. et al. (2021), “Using Geomembrane Liners to Reduce Seepage through the Base of Tailings Ponds—A Review and a Framework for Design Guidelines”, Geosciences, Vol. 11/2, p. 93, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11020093.
[52] UNECE (2024), “Training on United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) Application to strategic projects in accordance with the EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA)”, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/events/training-united-nations-framework-classification-resources-unfc.
[11] University of Leoben (2004), Minerals Planning Policies and Supply Practices in Europe, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjS2eO7muiJAxXJfKQEHasXBjwQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fdocsroom%2Fdocuments%2F1811%2Fattachments%2F1%2Ftranslations%2Fen%2Frenditions%2Fnative&usg=AOvV.
[16] USGS (2025), National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, United States Geological Survey, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/national-cooperative-geologic-mapping-program.
[48] Vagonetto (2024), Fokis Mining Park.
[33] Worden, S. et al. (2024), “Regional post-mining land use assessment: An interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approach”, Resources Policy, Vol. 89, p. 104680, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104680.
[32] Zhang, J. et al. (2011), “Land Use-Based Landscape Planning and Restoration in Mine Closure Areas”, Environmental Management, Vol. 47/5, pp. 739-750, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9638-z.
[4] Zinkgruvan Mining-rethink (2024), Re:think programme, https://www.zinkgruvanmining-rethink.se/ (accessed on May 2025).
[45] Zulfatun Mahmudah (2022), Local Media Engagement: Communication Strategy to Gain Social.
← 1. EIT RawMaterials is a networking organisation committed to foster innovation and attractiveness for the European raw materials sector. The EIT RawMaterials Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) Hubs play a critical role in reducing regional innovation disparities and boosting innovation capacity in Europe’s raw materials sector. M-ERA.NET is an EU funded network which has been established to support and increase the coordination of European research programmes and related funding in materials science and engineering. EU Missions are a novelty of the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme for the years 2021-2027. They are a coordinated effort by the Commission to pool the necessary resources in terms of policies and regulations, as well as other activities.
← 2. The countries surveyed in this study were Austria, Finland, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
← 3. The lack of consultation, even pertaining to the Sami Indigenous populations whereby some countries with Sami peoples may require consultation (Finland, Norway, Sweden) but there is not a standardised framework or mechanism requiring negotiation of agreements between companies and local actors/rights holders (Raitio, Allard and Lawrence, 2020[58]).
← 4. Cooperation between regional and national governments is essential to address environmental damage from past and ongoing mining projects including rehabilitating abandoned mines. This is explored in further detail in Chapter 4. In addition to these environmental improvements, regions can focus on communicating sustainable approaches to mining to local actors.