The Swedish Presidency of the EU Council submitted a first partial compromise text for the critical raw materials act to the Member States on 26 May. At best, it would like the EU Council to adopt its position (‘general approach’) by the end of June (see EUROPE 13185/2).
The compromise circulated on 26 May leaves out a few articles at the end of the regulation (strategic partnerships, delegated powers and exchange of information between member countries), but covers the bulk of the text.
The Swedish Presidency is therefore proposing to retain the spirit and structure of the Commission’s proposal, which is primarily intended to facilitate the establishment of “strategic projects” for the extraction, transformation or recycling of strategic critical raw materials (see EUROPE 13143/2).
The targets for these three types of activity have, however, been revised somewhat: in the Presidency text, the EU must, by 2030, process on its territory at least 50% of the strategic raw materials it consumes each year, whereas the Commission had proposed only 40%. In terms of recycling capacity for these raw materials, the target has been raised from 15% to 20% of the EU’s annual consumption. As for the extraction of raw materials in the EU, the figure of 10% of annual consumption is maintained.
The Swedish Presidency of the EU Council suggests keeping the same lists of critical raw materials (Annex I) and strategic raw materials (Annex II). In the latter category, it proposes only to include boron, lithium, natural graphite and nickel, which are used for products other than batteries. Lithium, for example, is also used in the manufacture of glass, ceramics and lubricants.
In a recital, the authors of the compromise consider that strategic raw materials that are by-products, i.e. obtained during the manufacture of another main product, should also benefit from the advantages offered by the text.
In terms of the benefits to be derived from strategic projects,the Swedish presidency has followed the Commission’s broad lines. Surprisingly, however, they have removed the obligation on Member States to support project developers to increase public acceptance. However, this subject was the subject of numerous comments by the EU27 during a debate on 22 May in Brussels (see EUROPE 13185/2).
Finally, contrary to the European Parliament’s rapporteur, Nicola Beer (Renew Europe, German) (see EUROPE 13183/7), the compromise does not remove the obligation for Member States and the Commission to make public certain information on exploration programmes or on the risks associated with critical raw material resources.
See the partial compromise: https://aeur.eu/f/750 (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)