Nestled among the undulating hills of Galicia in northern Spain, where wild horses and cattle have grazed for centuries, Europe’s hopes for clean energy security lie buried deep beneath the ground – for now.
The Mina Doade lithium project is one of 23 extractive mining sites designated as “strategic” by Brussels under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) to boost production of minerals vital for making solar panels, wind turbines and batteries for electric vehicles.
That designation means environmental permitting procedures will be streamlined, potentially fast-tracking Mina Doade’s final approval.
But the mining site lies just less than one kilometre from protected land, and the project’s sensitive location is fuelling opposition among conservation groups and local residents, who say it threatens rich biodiversity in the protected Atlantic wet heathlands and forest ecosystem as well as the area’s water supplies.
“They say lithium is strategic – but for us, water is,” said Ibán Losada, a young forestry worker, adding that the rolling grasslands around Mina Doade are home to threatened species such as the Iberian wolf and red kite.
Mina Doade’s owner, Recursos Minerales de Galicia, did not respond to several requests for comment. The project’s website emphasises a focus on limiting its environmental impact, saying it will minimise noise, dust and water consumption.
Clean energy vs biodiversity?
A Climate Home News investigation has found that Mina Doade is among 11 of the EU’s strategic mining projects that overlap land lying within one kilometre of Natura 2000 network of biodiversity-protected areas.
Three more strategic mining projects – in Finland, Romania and central Spain – directly overlap Natura 2000 land, an analysis of geospatial data showed.
Buffer zones of one or two kilometres are often used in academic papers and technical documentation to consider potential environmental impacts beyond the borders of such protected sites, for example on groundwater.
Beyond the strategic critical minerals projects announced last year, Climate Home’s reporting found that in a sample of three countries – Spain, Italy and Germany – 259 permits for the exploration or extraction of critical minerals partially overlap Natura 2000 sites, equivalent to 40% of the total number of permits recorded in national and regional land registries.
While mining is not prohibited on or near Natura 2000 areas, environmental experts and campaigners say operating mines in such areas increases the risk of harm to wildlife habitats and water supplies.
In Finland’s northernmost Lapland region, in a remote area where Sámi communities still herd reindeer, Anglo American’s Sakatti project aims to start producing copper, cobalt and other critical minerals during the next decade, despite its location on Natura 2000 protected land.
The two other strategic projects which partially overlap Natura 2000 sites are a graphite project in Romania and a tungsten project in Spain, Climate Home’s investigation found. Graphite is used in lithium battery anodes, while tungsten is also used in batteries, as well as solar panels and wind turbines.
Asked to comment about Sakatti’s location, London-listed Anglo American said protecting the region’s unique biodiversity was “paramount”.
Most of the mine’s operations would take place underground to ensure a “minimal surface footprint”, and access to the mine would be from outside the protected area’s buffer zone, the company said in a statement.
It said it planned a series of environmental compensation measures agreed in partnership with local communities, including protecting habitat and restoring degraded wetlands in the area, as well as the voluntary purchase of 2,910 hectares of forest land elsewhere.
Sakatti has not yet been given the green light, and Finland’s state-owned land administrator Metsähallitus told Climate Home News the project’s Natura 2000 assessment did not eliminate uncertainties about its potential impact on groundwater in the Viiankiaapa mire reserve that it partially overlaps.
Environmental balancing act
The findings of Climate Home’s investigation highlight the environmental balancing act faced by Europe as it seeks to shore up its clean energy security by boosting domestic production of metals such as lithium, nickel, copper and cobalt – all vital for the bloc’s clean energy industries.
Under the CRMA, the EU aims to mine 10% of its annual critical raw materials needs domestically by 2030 to reduce its dependence on China by fast-tracking the approval of extractive projects designated as strategic, such as Mina Doade. At the moment, the EU produces about 3% of the critical minerals it needs.
But the goal for increased domestic production puts further pressure on Europe’s Natura 2000 network, which covers 18% of the bloc’s total land area and is a pillar of the EU’s pledge to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and restore all degraded ecosystems in need of recovery by the middle of the century.
“In the name of seemingly climate goals, energy transition, and also obviously military goals, we’re cutting very essential environmental standards that not only protect nature, but also people,” said Cléo Moreno, legal counsel on EU environmental law at ClientEarth, an NGO.
Growing global concern over mining surge
Beyond Europe, too, concern is growing over how to ensure the switch away from fossil fuels does not exacerbate environmental damage from mining.
According to 2024 research by S&P Global Sustainable, 71% of global transition-mineral mines are located in ecologically sensitive areas.
But advocates of efforts to boost European mining say the bloc’s stringent environmental safeguards mean damage can be limited, averting mining disasters more common in other mineral-rich countries in Africa and Latin America.
Where mining has led to environmental impacts, “remediation measures should be implemented” over mine closure… “otherwise we risk importing (minerals) from distant regions where transparency, labour conditions, and environmental safeguards are uncertain,” said Ester Boixareu, a specialist on energy transition minerals at Spain’s Geological and Mining Institute (IGME-CSIC), a state body.
Some environmental campaigners warn, however, that this logic could make European countries complacent about the potential damage from ramping up critical minerals output.
“The EU is in the process of lowering those same environmental standards it prides itself on having,” said Ilze Tralmaka, a law and policy advisor on environmental democracy at ClientEarth, pointing to the fast-tracking of approvals for the “strategic” projects.
Bypassing safeguards?
Being designated as strategic means that while projects must still comply with member states’ environmental laws, they are eligible for faster approval through streamlined bureaucracy and can more easily access EU-backed capital.
Critics of the CRMA fear it could pressure national and local authorities to approve mining projects, despite environmental risks.
Classifying certain projects as strategic “is an attempt to bypass the safeguards normally required under the Nature directives”, said Gabriel Schwaderer, executive director of EuroNatur, a nature conservation foundation based in Germany.
The EU’s Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Birds (2009/147/EC) directives are the cornerstone of the Natura 2000 network, contributing to EU and global biodiversity goals by improving coverage and protection of threatened species and habitats, reducing land-use pressures inside protected areas compared with surrounding land.
In Germany, Michael Reckordt of Berlin-based NGO PowerShift warned that the pressure to approve projects more quickly comes at a time when staffing levels are being reduced across federal departments, including environmental agencies.
“With the CRMA, the aim is to give a permit or get a licence within 27 months, and on the other hand … highly intensive projects are now reviewed by fewer people,” Reckordt said.
Asked to comment on the risks of developing critical raw materials projects on or near Natura 2000 areas, the Commission’s directorates-general for environment and for internal market and industry said member states were responsible for permitting, monitoring and carrying out environmental assessments.
They said that while the Commission provides detailed guidance on assessing risks to Natura 2000 sites, “there are no specific thresholds set in the EU nature legislation in relation to the significance of negative impacts” because “such assessment has to be done on a case-by-case basis”.
It can step in if a country clearly fails to apply EU law, for example by launching infringement procedures, their statement said.
The EU Court of Justice has repeatedly ruled against member states for inadequate environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and for permitting the degradation of protected sites.
Recycling and lithium waste recovery
Industry advocates say mining can be compatible with environmental protection if the right controls are put in place and properly implemented.
“In many contexts, the real challenges lie in enforcement capacity, institutional capability, and the cultural shifts required to implement policies effectively,” said Gemma James, a spokesperson for nature and biodiversity at the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030, an investor-led initiative.
“We have seen examples where nature-related risks have stopped production. Therefore, investors need to promote effective management in relation to nature (and) need to set common expectations, reduce inconsistencies, and help avoid a ‘race to the bottom’,” James said.
At the same time, “a level playing field” is needed globally to ensure that companies obey the same rules regarding operating in protected areas.
Mining advocates also point to the potential of emerging technologies to make Europe’s green transition less destructive, from recovering lithium from mine water to urban mining and large-scale e-waste recycling.
But such solutions remain underdeveloped, and environmentalists say mining has no place on, or near, protected land, instead suggesting Europe’s policymakers turn their attention to reducing demand for critical minerals.
“Recycling, substituting or increasing material efficiency should represent a priority at all times,” said Anne Larigauderie, biologist and former executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an independent international body.
An alliance of NGOs has formed the EU Raw Materials Coalition, calling for measures that would ease demand for critical minerals, such as reducing car and battery sizes, promoting car sharing and public transport, and pursuing policies to curb overall consumption.
Confronted with the conflicting demands of industry and anti-mining campaigners, policymakers face a difficult task, said Julio César Arranz, a senior geologist at Spain’s Geological and Mining Institute (IGME), a state body.
“To what extent does declaring an area protected imply a categorical ‘no’ to mining?” he said. “Those in favour of mining argue that if done carefully, it can be done anywhere. Environmentalists, on the other hand, contend that there are places where nothing should ever be permitted.
“Those of us in the administration often find ourselves somewhere in between.”
This investigation was supported by Free Press Unlimited’s Collaborative and Investigative Journalism Initiative (CIJI) grant programme.
Main image: The Vedra Valley in Lombardy, Italy, where a zinc mining project is being developed, is located inside a Natura 2000 site
