The European Union’s drive to secure access to critical raw materials is increasingly being framed as a matter of security, a shift that critics warn could undermine environmental protections, democratic processes, and the rights of local communities.
Despite accounting for around 5% of the global population, the European Union consumes close to 20% of the world’s mineral resources, a gap that is widening as renewable energy, electric vehicles, digital technologies, and defence needs expand. This imbalance, analysts argue, has encouraged what they describe as a new form of “green imperialism,” aimed at maintaining mineral flows from the Global South and Europe’s periphery to major industrial centres.
Over the past two decades, access to minerals has shifted from a trade and industrial policy issue to one increasingly treated as an existential security concern. The process accelerated after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and culminated in the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Regulation, adopted in 2024. The regulation designates “Strategic Projects” that benefit from faster permitting, privileged access to funding, and exemptions from certain environmental safeguards, with the stated goal of strengthening Europe’s strategic autonomy.
Supporters argue the approach is necessary as demand for minerals such as copper, lithium, and rare earth elements is projected to multiply several times by 2030, while global production remains concentrated in a handful of countries. Critics counter that securitization has allowed industrial and political actors to push through projects by weakening environmental oversight, accelerating approvals, and marginalizing opposition.
Concerns have grown following the European Commission’s designation of dozens of strategic projects through processes that critics describe as opaque and lacking public participation. Civil society organisations report that requests for environmental information have been denied on national security grounds, marking an unprecedented application of defence-related exemptions in environmental governance. In several member states, officials have also portrayed opposition from local communities and environmental groups as threats to public security or economic stability.
Observers warn that this narrative risks fostering democratic erosion by restricting access to information, delegitimizing environmental activism, and prioritizing industrial interests over public participation. They argue that mining-related conflicts long associated with the “resource curse” in developing countries, such as social polarization, corruption, and weakened rule of law, are now emerging within Europe itself.
While EU institutions maintain that strategic mineral development is essential for the green transition, defence, and industrial resilience, critics say the current approach reflects a structural contradiction. Efforts to accelerate extraction and processing are colliding with the EU’s own legal commitments to environmental protection, human rights, and transparency.
As Europe moves to expand domestic mining and overseas supply chains, the outcome of this securitized approach to raw materials policy may determine whether the EU can reconcile strategic autonomy with its democratic and environmental foundations.
