Environmental lawyers and community groups have sharply condemned the European Commission for refusing to remove the controversial Barroso lithium mine in northern Portugal from its list of strategic projects under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA). The mine, located in Boticas, has become a flashpoint in national and international debates over the social and environmental costs of Europe’s push for domestic critical minerals.
The Commission on Thursday rejected a joint request by Associação Unidos em Defesa de Covas do Barroso (UDCB), MiningWatch Portugal and ClientEarth to revoke the mine’s strategic designation. Critics argue that the label sidesteps mounting evidence that the project poses severe environmental, safety and social risks — and provides political cover for fast-tracking a project that local communities have opposed for nearly eight years.
According to NGOs, the Commission largely dismissed concerns related to water scarcity, biodiversity loss and tailings safety, insisting these fall under Portuguese national responsibility. In a statement, the Commission stressed that its role under the CRMA “does not include verifying full compliance with EU environmental law,” prompting accusations that the Act is being used to override normal scrutiny through a “legal presumption” that the mine serves the public interest.
ClientEarth lawyer Ilze Tralmaka warned that the CRMA should not be used to accelerate projects “that science shows are unsafe, environmentally destructive and unnecessary,” stressing that the green transition “cannot come at the cost of community safety.” She added that independent evidence suggests lithium demand should be reduced wherever possible, with a stronger emphasis on recycling to limit new mining.
NGOs cite expert studies showing that Barroso’s waste storage and water management systems could fail during heavy rainfall, potentially contaminating farmland, local water sources and even affecting the Douro Valley’s world-famous Port wine region downstream. Another analysis highlighted major flaws in the project’s air-quality assessment.
MiningWatch Portugal’s Nik Völker said the Commission’s decision “shows that the EU is willing to trade rural lives and irreplaceable landscapes for a political headline,” adding that calling the mine “strategic” does not make it safe or sustainable. “The Mina do Barroso offers minimal benefits and enormous risks: a textbook example of how not to do a green transition,” he said.
Local opposition to the mine has been exceptionally strong, with farmers and residents warning the project threatens their land, water and livelihoods. Their activism has gained global attention, including a Cannes-premiered documentary about the community’s efforts to resist the development.
Aida Fernandes of UDCB said the mine’s approval prioritises Europe’s interests at the expense of the people who live in Covas do Barroso. “Our springs, our soil and our farms are what keeps this community alive. Once they are gone, they are gone forever,” she said. “Europe cannot build a green future by destroying the places that are already living sustainably.”
NGOs caution that while securing critical mineral supplies is a legitimate objective, the CRMA and the strategic project label are being misused to gain access to financing and expedited permitting for projects with major unanswered environmental and social questions.
