Workshop 9: Between Green Ambitions and Geopolitical Realities: EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act

Summary

This discussion focused on the European Union’s Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and the challenges of balancing green transition goals with geopolitical realities and ethical considerations. The session examined how the EU is addressing its heavy dependence on critical minerals, particularly from China, which supplies 100% of heavy rare earth elements and 97% of magnesium to Europe. The CRMA sets ambitious 2030 targets including 10% domestic extraction, 40% EU processing, 25% recycling, and limiting dependence on any single external supplier to 65%.

Dr. Hamid Pouran presented critical minerals as the “modern salt” – strategically important materials that are both economically vital and face supply disruption risks. He highlighted how clean technologies are mineral-intensive, with electric vehicles requiring six times more minerals than conventional cars, and EU lithium needs expected to increase 20-fold by 2050. Pouran showcased Finland’s Keliber lithium project as a successful example of accelerated permitting and EU-based extraction and processing, though acknowledged that such projects alone are insufficient to meet Europe’s needs.

Cruz Glynka emphasized the social and environmental dimensions, questioning what “critical” means and for whom. He highlighted ethical concerns in regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where cobalt mining causes environmental degradation and human insecurity. Glynka stressed the need for genuine due diligence and consultative processes with affected communities, warning that agreements must be mutually beneficial rather than exploitative. Both speakers agreed that while the CRMA includes sustainability provisions, implementation remains challenging due to competitive pressures and the complexity of global supply chains. The discussion concluded that effective governance requires both strict EU regulations and international cooperation, though geopolitical competition makes comprehensive global frameworks difficult to achieve.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and Strategic Dependencies**: The discussion focused on the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, which aims to reduce Europe’s heavy dependence on single suppliers (particularly China, which supplies 100% of heavy rare earths and 97% of magnesium) by achieving four key benchmarks by 2030: 10% domestic extraction, 40% EU processing, 25% recycling, and maximum 65% reliance on any single external supplier.

– **Implementation Success Stories and Practical Examples**: Speakers highlighted concrete examples like Finland’s Keriber lithium project as a flagship model for European critical mineral production, demonstrating how accelerated permitting processes and strategic project designation can create viable domestic supply chains for battery-grade materials.

– **Social and Environmental Justice Concerns**: A significant portion addressed the ethical dimensions of critical mineral extraction, particularly in regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo, emphasizing the need for due diligence, fair trade practices, and ensuring that mining agreements benefit local communities rather than destabilizing them.

– **Supply Chain Transparency and Regulatory Frameworks**: Discussion covered the challenges of tracking minerals through complex global supply chains, the need for industry regulation versus self-governance, and whether governance should occur at continental (EU) or global (UN/OECD) levels.

– **Balancing Competitiveness with Ethics**: Speakers grappled with the tension between maintaining competitive advantage in a multipolar world while upholding environmental and social standards, acknowledging that commercial and security interests sometimes override ethical considerations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act from multiple perspectives, analyzing both its practical implementation strategies and its broader implications for global supply chains, environmental sustainability, and social justice. The session sought to bridge the gap between policy ambitions and real-world challenges in securing critical mineral supplies.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, analytical tone throughout, characterized by cautious optimism tempered with realistic concerns. While speakers acknowledged positive developments like the Finnish lithium project, the tone became more sobering when addressing ethical challenges and geopolitical realities. The conversation remained constructive and collaborative, with speakers building on each other’s points and acknowledging the complexity of balancing competing interests in critical mineral policy.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Claire Patzig** – Session moderator and presenter who provided introduction to the Critical Raw Materials Act

– **Online moderator** – Remote session moderator providing technical guidance and session rules

– **Hamid Pouran** – Dr., Senior member of IEEE, Working group member on energy and environment, Lecturer on environmental technologies, Former COP delegation participant. Expertise: Critical minerals, clean technology, net zero innovation

– **Cruz Glynka** – Senior fellow at Humanity in Action, Advocate for just transition. Expertise: Social and environmental dimensions of critical raw materials, ethical considerations in mineral extraction

– **Marilia Maciel** – Director for Digital Trade and Economic Security at Diplo

– **Constance Weise** – Session rapporteur/note-taker who summarized key messages

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# Summary: EU Critical Raw Materials Act Discussion

## Introduction and Framework

Claire Patzig, serving as session moderator, introduced the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and its strategic importance. She outlined the four key 2030 benchmarks: 10% domestic extraction, 40% EU processing, more than 15% recycling, and limiting dependence on any single external supplier to 65%.

Patzig highlighted Europe’s current vulnerabilities, noting that China supplies 100% of heavy rare earth elements and 97% of magnesium to Europe, while controlling 60% of lithium supplies and 90% of rare earth elements globally. She emphasized that clean technologies are mineral-intensive, with electric vehicles requiring six times more minerals than conventional cars, and EU lithium needs projected to increase more than 20 times by 2050.

Patzig also distinguished between where minerals are mined versus where mining companies are headquartered, using the example of Congo and Switzerland, and stressed the importance of considering human rights implications in mining operations globally.

## Technical Implementation Perspective

Dr. Hamid Pouran opened his presentation with a historical analogy, describing critical minerals as “the new salt” of the 21st century. He explained how Roman soldiers were paid salary (from “salamium”) to purchase salt as a strategic commodity, paralleling today’s dependence on critical minerals for economic and technological security.

Pouran assessed the CRMA targets with cautious optimism, suggesting that recycling and processing targets are technically feasible with adequate political will and investment, though the 65% dependency limit presents significant challenges given current market concentrations.

### Finland’s Keliber Project

Pouran highlighted Finland’s Keliber lithium project as a flagship example of successful CRMA implementation. The project will produce 15,000 tons of lithium hydroxide per year, enough for 300,000 electric cars, with 16 years of continuous output. It demonstrates the potential for European critical mineral production through accelerated permitting processes, strategic project designation, and integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, encompassing both mining and refining operations within the EU.

However, Pouran acknowledged that such individual projects remain insufficient to meet Europe’s overall mineral needs, serving more as proof of concept rather than comprehensive solutions.

Pouran also mentioned his recent experience in Central Asia, where he witnessed the EU-Central Asia agreement, highlighting ongoing efforts to diversify supply sources.

## Social and Environmental Justice Perspective

Cruz Glynka challenged the EU-centric framing by asking “critical to whom?” He highlighted a crucial paradox: minerals are deemed “critical” by wealthy regions like Europe, while countries that actually need reliable energy systems most urgently are often those being mined for these resources.

### Democratic Republic of Congo Case Study

Glynka’s analysis focused on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), illustrating the human cost of critical mineral extraction. He described how cobalt mining creates environmental degradation and human insecurity in source regions, while processing and value-added activities occur elsewhere. He cited specific examples including UN reports about minerals being illegally transferred from DRC through Rwanda, and the EU’s memorandum of understanding with Rwanda despite these concerns.

### Due Diligence Challenges

Glynka explained how minerals can be combined and processed through multiple intermediaries, making it extremely difficult to track ethical sourcing through supply chains. He warned against inadequate certification systems that might allow “ethical laundering” of problematic minerals.

## Key Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

Both speakers agreed that industries require strict regulatory enforcement to implement ethical practices, as commercial interests typically override voluntary ESG commitments without legislative requirements. They also agreed that supply chain transparency faces significant technical and economic challenges.

However, they diverged on balancing competitive necessity with ethical standards. Pouran articulated a pragmatic position, acknowledging that “sometimes you need to step back from your ideals and be more pragmatic” when facing limited supplies and international competition. Glynka countered that ethical failures can become security vulnerabilities, arguing that unfair treatment of partner countries creates instability that threatens supply chain security.

## Audience Discussion and Additional Perspectives

The Q&A session explored technical solutions for supply chain tracking, including discussion of EU-level initiatives like GAIA-X versus private sector approaches like Catena-X in the automotive industry.

Marilia Maciel contributed a Latin American perspective, emphasizing that countries providing raw materials want to move beyond being mere suppliers and gain access to technology and higher-value processing capabilities. This highlighted the importance of technology transfer and value chain development in partnership agreements.

Questions also addressed learning from existing certification systems such as fair trade and conflict minerals to create similar frameworks for critical minerals.

## Practical Implementation Challenges

The discussion identified several ongoing challenges:

– The feasibility of achieving the 65% dependency limit by 2030 given current market concentrations

– Developing specific mechanisms for implementing due diligence across complex mineral processing networks

– Ensuring compensation from mining activities reaches affected communities

– Balancing EU processing targets (40%) with equitable partnerships with source countries

– Determining the division of responsibility between public and private sectors for supply chain tracking

## Session Conclusion

The session concluded with recognition that effective governance requires both strict EU regulations and international cooperation, though geopolitical competition makes comprehensive global frameworks difficult to achieve. The discussion revealed that while the path forward is clear in principle—requiring strong regulation, international cooperation, and ethical considerations—practical implementation will require navigating complex trade-offs between ideals and competitive realities.

The conversation demonstrated that the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act represents both a technical policy instrument and a framework for addressing fundamental questions about European values, global justice, and sustainable development in an increasingly complex and competitive world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cruz Glynka: Hello, can you hear me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement points

Industries require regulatory enforcement for ethical practices

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Industries require strict EU legislation and monitoring to implement ESG regulations, as they won’t do so voluntarily due to commercial interests

Due diligence tracking is extremely difficult and costly, as minerals can be combined making ethical sourcing nearly impossible to verify

Summary

Both speakers agree that companies will not voluntarily implement ethical practices due to commercial pressures and cost considerations, requiring mandatory regulatory frameworks and strict monitoring to ensure compliance with sustainability and human rights standards.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Supply chain transparency faces significant technical and economic challenges

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Industries require strict EU legislation and monitoring to implement ESG regulations, as they won’t do so voluntarily due to commercial interests

Due diligence tracking is extremely difficult and costly, as minerals can be combined making ethical sourcing nearly impossible to verify

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that tracking ethical sourcing through complex supply chains is technically challenging and economically costly, requiring systematic approaches similar to existing certification systems like fair trade or carbon tracking.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

International coordination frameworks have limitations

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Industries require strict EU legislation and monitoring to implement ESG regulations, as they won’t do so voluntarily due to commercial interests

The OECD provides guidance for 40+ countries but lacks binding agreements, making coordination difficult in a multipolar world with competing interests

Summary

Both speakers recognize that while international frameworks exist for coordination on critical materials, they lack enforcement mechanisms and face challenges from competing national interests in a multipolar world.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that achieving EU critical materials goals requires not just technical solutions but strong political commitment, adequate investment, and comprehensive approaches that address social and environmental dimensions.

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Some benchmarks like 25% recycling and 40% EU processing are feasible with political will and investment, though 65% dependency limit is challenging

Mutual benefit agreements should include community consultation, environmental compensation, and technology transfer to help source countries move up the value chain

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight the importance of considering human rights and social impacts in global mining operations, even when discussions focus primarily on European strategic interests.

Speakers

– Claire Patzig
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Human rights considerations in mining conditions globally should be kept in mind during European-focused discussions

Critical minerals extraction often causes environmental degradation and human insecurity in source countries like DRC, while processing occurs elsewhere creating complex supply chains

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Pragmatic acceptance of ethical compromises under competitive pressure

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Industries require strict EU legislation and monitoring to implement ESG regulations, as they won’t do so voluntarily due to commercial interests

The EU has signed agreements with countries like Rwanda despite UN reports of minerals being illegally transferred from DRC through Rwanda

Explanation

Despite both speakers advocating for ethical practices, they both acknowledge the reality that competitive pressures and strategic necessities sometimes force compromise on ethical standards. This pragmatic acceptance of imperfect solutions was unexpected given their advocacy for human rights and environmental protection.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Feasibility of EU’s 2030 targets with proper implementation

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Claire Patzig

Arguments

Some benchmarks like 25% recycling and 40% EU processing are feasible with political will and investment, though 65% dependency limit is challenging

The EU’s 2030 targets include 10% domestic extraction, 40% EU processing, 25% recycling, and maximum 65% dependence on any single supplier

Explanation

Despite the ambitious nature of the targets and short timeframe, there was unexpected consensus that most of the EU’s 2030 benchmarks are technically achievable, with the main barriers being political will and investment rather than technological limitations.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for regulatory enforcement of ethical practices, the technical challenges of supply chain transparency, and the limitations of international coordination frameworks. There was also agreement on the importance of considering human rights impacts and the feasibility of EU targets with proper political commitment.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental challenges and solutions, with pragmatic acceptance of implementation difficulties. This consensus suggests that while the path forward is clear in principle – requiring strong regulation, international cooperation, and ethical considerations – the practical implementation will require navigating complex trade-offs between ideals and competitive realities. The agreement among speakers from different backgrounds (technical, policy, and advocacy) strengthens the credibility of proposed solutions and indicates potential for unified approaches to critical materials governance.

Different viewpoints

Prioritization of ethical standards versus competitive necessity in securing critical materials

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Industries require strict EU legislation and monitoring to implement ESG regulations, as they won’t do so voluntarily due to commercial interests

Critical minerals extraction often causes environmental degradation and human insecurity in source countries like DRC, while processing occurs elsewhere creating complex supply chains

Summary

Pouran argues that competitive realities sometimes force compromise on ethical ideals, stating ‘sometimes you need to step back from your ideals and be more pragmatic’ due to limited supply and competition. Glynka emphasizes that ethical considerations should remain central, arguing for comprehensive community consultation and mutual benefit agreements that prioritize affected populations.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Feasibility and approach to processing critical materials within the EU versus source countries

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Some benchmarks like 25% recycling and 40% EU processing are feasible with political will and investment, though 65% dependency limit is challenging

Mutual benefit agreements should include community consultation, environmental compensation, and technology transfer to help source countries move up the value chain

Summary

Pouran supports EU processing for strategic supply security reasons, acknowledging it may not be ideal from partnership perspectives but justifiable strategically. Glynka advocates for processing in source countries as part of mutual benefit, helping them move up the value chain rather than remaining raw material suppliers.

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Contradiction between EU ethical commitments and practical policy implementation

Speakers

– Cruz Glynka
– Hamid Pouran

Arguments

The EU has signed agreements with countries like Rwanda despite UN reports of minerals being illegally transferred from DRC through Rwanda

Some benchmarks like 25% recycling and 40% EU processing are feasible with political will and investment, though 65% dependency limit is challenging

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because both speakers generally support the EU’s critical materials strategy, but Glynka directly challenges the EU’s ethical consistency by pointing out contradictory policy decisions, while Pouran focuses on technical feasibility without addressing these ethical contradictions. This reveals a fundamental tension between strategic objectives and stated values.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on the balance between competitive necessity and ethical standards, the optimal location for processing activities, and the consistency of EU policy implementation with stated values.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While speakers share common goals of sustainable and ethical critical materials sourcing, they differ substantially on implementation priorities and the acceptable trade-offs between competitiveness and ethics. These disagreements reflect broader tensions in EU policy between strategic autonomy, economic competitiveness, and human rights commitments that could impact the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Critical Raw Materials Act.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that achieving EU critical materials goals requires not just technical solutions but strong political commitment, adequate investment, and comprehensive approaches that address social and environmental dimensions.

Speakers

– Hamid Pouran
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Some benchmarks like 25% recycling and 40% EU processing are feasible with political will and investment, though 65% dependency limit is challenging

Mutual benefit agreements should include community consultation, environmental compensation, and technology transfer to help source countries move up the value chain

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight the importance of considering human rights and social impacts in global mining operations, even when discussions focus primarily on European strategic interests.

Speakers

– Claire Patzig
– Cruz Glynka

Arguments

Human rights considerations in mining conditions globally should be kept in mind during European-focused discussions

Critical minerals extraction often causes environmental degradation and human insecurity in source countries like DRC, while processing occurs elsewhere creating complex supply chains

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Critical raw materials are defined by both economic importance and supply disruption risk, with Europe heavily dependent on China (60% lithium, 90% rare earth elements)

The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act sets ambitious 2030 targets: 10% domestic extraction, 40% EU processing, 25% recycling, and maximum 65% dependence on any single supplier

Finland’s Keliber lithium project serves as a successful implementation model, demonstrating accelerated permitting, EU-based mining and refining, and strict ESG standards

Critical minerals extraction often causes environmental degradation and human insecurity in source countries, while processing occurs elsewhere, creating complex and difficult-to-track supply chains

Industries require strict EU legislation and monitoring to implement ESG regulations voluntarily due to commercial interests overriding ethical considerations

Due diligence tracking is extremely challenging and costly, as minerals can be combined making ethical sourcing verification nearly impossible

Competition between major powers (EU, US, China) sometimes forces pragmatic decisions that override ethical considerations when securing limited supplies

Mutual benefit agreements should include community consultation, environmental compensation, and technology transfer to help source countries advance in the value chain

Resolutions and action items

Replicate Finland’s Keliber project model across Europe as a template for other European raw materials projects

Diversify supply sources through strategic partnerships with countries like Central Asia, Australia, Canada, and Middle East

Implement strict monitoring processes and legislation to encourage companies to follow ESG regulations

Develop better consultative and holistic processes with communities to ensure all people are engaged and consulted

Learn from existing certification systems (fair trade, blood diamonds, dolphin-free tuna) to create similar frameworks for critical minerals

Unresolved issues

Whether the 65% dependency limit on single suppliers can realistically be achieved by 2030

How to balance competitiveness with ethical considerations when competing against countries with lower standards

Specific mechanisms for tracking supply chains and implementing due diligence across complex mineral processing networks

How to ensure compensation from mining activities reaches affected communities rather than just regional leaders

Whether processing should occur in EU (40% target) or in source countries to benefit local economies

How to maintain ethical standards while remaining competitive in a multipolar world with competing interests

The effectiveness of global versus continental governance frameworks for critical materials

Suggested compromises

Focus on achievable benchmarks first (25% recycling, 40% EU processing) while working toward more challenging targets (65% dependency limit)

Combine domestic EU processing with sustainable processing in source countries to balance security and mutual benefit

Use existing international frameworks like OECD for coordination while accepting that binding global agreements may not be feasible

Implement certification systems similar to fair trade while maintaining vigilance against ‘greenwashing’ or inadequate standards

Balance essential supply security needs with ethical considerations through strict monitoring and public pressure rather than absolute restrictions

We all know about the word celery. It’s very important to us, the money that we receive at the end of the month to pay the bill, keep the lights on, etc. Or for the job that we has a historical context. Celery comes from the Latin word salamium and it was the money that was being paid to Roman soldiers to be able to buy salt because it was a strategic commodity… In 21st century, the new salt, the new strategic materials for us are critical minerals.

Speaker

Hamid Pouran

Reason

This historical analogy brilliantly reframes the entire discussion by connecting ancient strategic commodities to modern critical minerals. It demonstrates how what we consider ‘critical’ is contextual and temporary, providing both historical perspective and humility about current dependencies.

Impact

This opening metaphor set the intellectual tone for the entire session, moving beyond technical policy details to deeper questions about economic dependency and strategic vulnerability. It provided a memorable framework that other speakers referenced and built upon throughout the discussion.

You have to think of critical to who. And as we’ve been pointed out, there is some difference in of what criticality means to different regions… one thing you’ll notice is that the criticality of minerals isn’t to the regions that most need this and who often have energy systems which are unreliable and don’t support their needs.

Speaker

Cruz Glynka

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the EU-centric framing of the discussion by highlighting the paradox that minerals are deemed ‘critical’ by wealthy regions while the countries that actually need reliable energy systems the most are often the ones being mined for these resources.

Impact

This observation shifted the conversation from a purely technical/strategic discussion to one that grappled with global inequality and justice. It forced participants to confront the ethical dimensions of the EU’s mineral strategy and led to deeper questions about mutual benefit and fair partnerships.

Unfortunately we are dealing with a challenging world as you know. We have some desirable criteria like sustainability etc. We have some essential criteria and unfortunately essential criteria in terms of being competitive in the world override every other rule… sometimes you need to step back from your ideals and be more pragmatic. Is it good? I don’t think so. But is it essential? I’m afraid sometimes you don’t have no other choice.

Speaker

Hamid Pouran

Reason

This brutally honest assessment acknowledges the tension between stated values and geopolitical realities. It’s thought-provoking because it articulates what many policymakers think but rarely say publicly – that competitive pressures can force compromise of ethical standards.

Impact

This comment created a moment of uncomfortable truth-telling that elevated the discussion’s sophistication. It prompted Cruz Glynka to respond with concrete examples of how ethical considerations could actually serve strategic interests, leading to a more nuanced exploration of the relationship between values and pragmatism.

The worst thing you can have is a unsettled population that’s there that feels that they aren’t receiving the benefits of society. And they see their society being effectively pillaged for its resources while they live in poverty, which is just going to cause tension. Which, when there’s tension… this is when we have that challenge of that how do we maintain that 65% how do we stay in that 65% range when suddenly one of the critical strategic partners we had is no longer giving us minerals.

Speaker

Cruz Glynka

Reason

This insight brilliantly connects social justice concerns to strategic security interests, showing how ethical failures can become security vulnerabilities. It demonstrates that treating partner countries fairly isn’t just morally right but strategically necessary for supply chain stability.

Impact

This comment provided a compelling counter-argument to Pouran’s pragmatic realism, showing how ethical considerations and strategic interests can align rather than conflict. It moved the discussion toward exploring practical ways to achieve both goals simultaneously.

There’s so many examples where the things, the practices that we do overseas, we wouldn’t accept in Europe. And as we go into a kind of new multipolar order in the world, it becomes more and more important to reaffirm what our values are as we trade with other people.

Speaker

Cruz Glynka

Reason

This observation exposes the double standards in European policy and connects the critical minerals discussion to broader questions about Europe’s role in a changing global order. It challenges participants to consider whether Europe’s approach is sustainable in an increasingly multipolar world.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of the discussion beyond technical implementation to fundamental questions about European identity and values in international relations. It prompted reflection on whether current approaches are viable long-term as global power dynamics shift.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a sophisticated exploration of the tensions between strategic interests, ethical values, and global justice. Pouran’s salt analogy provided intellectual depth and historical perspective, while Glynka’s interventions consistently challenged EU-centric assumptions and introduced critical questions about equity and sustainability. The interplay between Pouran’s pragmatic realism and Glynka’s ethical challenges created a dynamic tension that elevated the entire conversation. Rather than simply discussing implementation details, participants grappled with fundamental questions about how Europe should engage with the world in an era of strategic competition while maintaining its stated values. The discussion evolved from technical to philosophical, examining not just how to secure critical minerals, but whether current approaches are ethically defensible and strategically sustainable in the long term.

How can we develop technical tools for tracking supply chains of critical raw materials?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

There’s uncertainty about whether technical tracking solutions should come from the EU (like GAIA-X) or private sector initiatives (like Catena-X in automotive), and where responsibility should lie for implementation

How can we implement concrete measures that consider the social dimension in the EU Critical Raw Materials Act?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

The social and environmental impacts are acknowledged but specific implementation mechanisms remain unclear and need further development

How can agreements be structured to be mutually beneficial, including technology transfer and moving countries up the value chain?

Speaker

Marilia Maciel

Explanation

Countries providing raw materials want to move beyond being just suppliers and gain access to technology and higher-value processing capabilities

What is the most effective governance framework for critical raw materials – global or continental?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

There’s tension between ideal global coordination and practical geopolitical realities that may favor regional approaches

How can due diligence mechanisms be strengthened to prevent ‘ethical laundering’ through certification?

Speaker

Cruz Glynka

Explanation

Current certification systems may allow justification of poor practices, and there’s risk that minerals from problematic sources get mixed with clean supplies

How can the EU balance competitiveness with ethical standards when competing globally for limited supplies?

Speaker

Hamid Pouran and Cruz Glynka

Explanation

There’s fundamental tension between maintaining high ethical standards and remaining competitive against countries with lower standards

What are the working conditions and human rights impacts in mining operations globally?

Speaker

Claire Patzig

Explanation

This was identified as needing a whole separate workshop to address adequately, indicating significant knowledge gaps