Critical minerals, renewables and community consent

 23 September 2025

The race to secure critical minerals is intensifying across the UK, EU, and globally. Governments and industries are fast-tracking permitting processes to meet ambitious net zero targets and strengthen energy security. However, this acceleration brings complex challenges for human rights, community engagement, and the need for meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples and local stakeholders. 

In this article, twentyfifty Account Director David Bezagu and Sector Director Caroline Vail explore the tension between rapid project delivery and responsible stakeholder engagement. They offer insights and strategies for industry leaders navigating this evolving landscape. 

The state of play: critical mineral policy trends 

In early June this year, the EU added 13 strategic critical minerals projects to its list of 47 projects announced in March. The projects span the value chain of strategic raw minerals (e.g lithium, graphite, manganese), from extraction to recycling, that will benefit from faster permitting and specific funding. 

The goal is to limit the permit-granting process to 27 months for extraction projects and 15 months for other projects, when it usually takes between 5 to 10 years.  

The EU Commission makes it clear that “streamlined procedures do not imply lower standards on environmental assessment or reduced involvement of the public”. However, the Strategic Projects benefit from an “overriding public interest”, which could allow them to proceed despite some opposition from local communities. Renewables and grid transmission projects in the EU benefit from similar arrangements, via the Renewable Energy Directive II and III.  

This trend isn’t EU specific. In the US, the Trump administration decided to fast track 10 mining projects in April. In early July, Chile’s Congress passed a law that will cut permitting time from 30% to 70%, according to the economy minister. A few years ago, Australia, Brazil, Peru, and South Africa also took action to simplify their permitting process.  

From net zero to energy security: why speed matters 

From meeting net zero targets to achieving greater independence from other countries, the arguments for fast-tracking critical minerals and renewable projects are well-known.  

In its latest report, the International Energy Agency states that lithium production will need to grow fivefold from today to 2040, while graphite and nickel production will need to double.

Benchmark Mineral Intelligence came up with the staggering figure of 290 new mines needing to be opened by 2030, just to meet the demand for minerals used in batteries. This sense of urgency can also be felt in the ramp-up of renewables capacity. To keep the world on a 1.5°C pathway, renewables capacity needs to grow more in each of the next 5 years than it grew in 2024, which was already a record year.  

But projects are getting delayed. According to the Brooking Institute, in 2024 there were 6.5 times as much energy generation and storage capacity seeking interconnection than there was online in California, and 3.3 times in other western states. 

In the EU, there were four times more wind capacity in permitting than under construction in 2022, a backlog that the industry continues to flag. In both minerals extraction/processing and in renewables projects, inefficient permitting processes are often blamed as one of the key reasons for the delays.   

The potential for tension with local communities 

If, on paper, the need to accelerate extractives and renewables projects to better fight climate change seems essential, it isn’t hard to foresee the concrete issues that will arise from this push. As the number of fast-tracked projects grows, conflicts with local communities, farmers, landowners and Indigenous Peoples are likely to intensify.  

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School identified almost 500 “contested renewables projects” across the US, an increase of 32% over last year’s report, which had already recorded a 29% increase over their 2023 census (contested projects are defined as those “that have faced significant opposition by individual residents, community-based groups, or other organizations”). 

In the EU, several of the Strategic Projects are already facing active opposition, such as the Jadar lithium project in Serbia or the lithium mine in Covas do Barroso, Portugal.  

The most telling statistic, perhaps, came from the work of several researchers who estimated in 2022 that more than half of the transition minerals and metals resources worldwide were located on or near the lands of Indigenous and traditional communities, two groups who are entitled to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), a process that takes time to enact effectively. 

"Surrendering some of the decision-making, ownership or benefits related to their assets to local communities is far from natural for most businesses, but this, alongside meaningful and serious engagement, might be the start of an answer"
- Caroline Vail, Sector Director, Industrials, Tech & Finance

Exploring approaches: no shortcut

How, then, is it possible to reconcile the need for faster roll-out of projects with the local communities’ right to have a say in those projects? 

There is no easy answer to this question. 

What we do know at twentyfifty, having worked on many extractives and infrastructure projects, is that there is no shortcut to community engagement. Some companies will try to move through the public consultation quicker, without proper consultation, creating the conditions for community unrest, public backlash and potentially operational disruptions down the line.  

Local communities are diverse, with many different opinions and expectations to manage. The process of engagement is lengthy and can feel overly complex for businesses, involving town halls, one-to-one engagements, documenting expectations, grievances, defining and testing social commitments, and more. 

But its strength lies in how comprehensive it is, as this is the only way for the company to create mutual trust with local communities and secure their ‘licence to operate’. Doing all this work will not guarantee that all local stakeholders approve the project, but it may ensure that a majority supports it.  

In the words of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector, timelines for community engagement should be “realistic” and “should be planned to allow for engagement to begin as early as practicable, provide stakeholders with sufficient time to engage meaningfully and be flexible enough to be adjusted to changes in the local context or operating environment”.  The ‘meaningful’ aspect is key here and shows that community engagement shouldn’t be treated as another administrative hurdle – which is how it might be perceived with the recent legislations.  

Shared ownership & serious engagement

In this context, newer community engagement mechanisms via shared ownership or shared benefit models are an interesting option. In Canada for example, according to the Energy Regulator, “First Nations, Métis, and Inuit entities were partners or beneficiaries in nearly 20% of Canada’s existing electricity-generating infrastructure, most of which produces renewable energy”. 

Empirical research seems to confirm the success of those initiatives and the greater acceptance of projects adopting such models (e.g. 1, 2, 3). 

Surrendering some of the decision-making, ownership or benefits related to their assets to local communities is far from natural for most businesses, but this, alongside meaningful and serious engagement, might be the start of an answer to the question above. 

Are you exploring how to manage human rights related to mining and critical minerals? Contact david.bezagu@twentyfifty.co.uk or caroline.vail@twentyfifty.co.uk.