As we drive through the hills in Northern Portugal, we can hardly meet any other cars. We are driving towards the village of Covas de Barroso, which has been at the centre of controversy in recent years, given the potential lithium projects just at the borders of the city. Lithium has been one of the most sought-after resources in recent decades as countries transition from a fossil-based economy to more sustainable sources of energy. Particularly, European-based car manufacturers have been looking in vain for local sources of materials for the production of lithium batteries for cars. The reserves in the North East of Portugal are one of the few comparable sites in Europe. The reserves reportedly include 28 million metric tons of high-grade lithium, whereas the project envisions four open-pit mines and is expected to last 10-15 years. Therefore, investors have been betting on potential growth opportunities around this mesmerising village. The potential projects involve Savannah Resources, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange. It is one of the stellar projects in the European Union aimed at producing critical minerals required for batteries and clean energy. The project will also contribute to and enhance the supply security for European industry.
Environmental and socio-economic risks
Pine trees along the winding road welcome us to the village, where we are greeted by the “Bem-vindos a Covas do Barroso” sign. The village itself has a long-lasting tradition in farming and agriculture. As we enter the village, we are greeted by the sign (“Não à Mina, Sim à Vida” that shows villagers’ resistance to the mine. Not so little village awaits tranquillity. Farmers go about their daily routine. Sheep and goats roam the streets towards the fields for their daily harvesting. The village and its surrounding area are pristine and protected. The village’s rich cultural and environmental heritage has been at the centre of controversy about the potential negative impact of the future mine in the area. Rustic elements, cobblestone and centuries-old houses characterise the architecture in the village.
The villages have been fighting for years to preserve their traditional way of life, natural environment, and agricultural-based traditions against the proposed mining development. The villagers we met tell us that they are strongly opposed to any developments that would affect their socio-economic livelihood. The mining investors would come and leave after fifteen years, which is the planned duration of the mine. The tranquillity and traditional way of living are two of the characteristics of Covas de Baroso, which could not be further away from the potential extraction process. For the villagers, the land is not just made of soil and rock; it is also connected to their identity and heritage.
In Barroso, a traditional village with large lithium reserves, negative environmental studies indicated impacts on local livelihoods. Despite government support for the project and villagers’ protests—including a refusal to sell land—legal questions over land title emerged, as one quarter of the land is owned by villagers and three-quarters is common land accessible to the company for extraction. The proposed project raises several socio-economic and environmental concerns. The local civil society argues that the project will generate a negative impact on streams, wells and groundwater (Chaves et al, 2021). It may also harm the habitat and its fragmentation. The project has already impacted rural landscapes through extraction activities, generating noise and dust. As far as socio-economic activity goes, it directly interferes with traditional agricultural practices of local farmers, shepherds, beekeepers and others, thereby affecting the cultural heritage and identity of the local community. Pereira, Leite, and Carmo have aptly argued (2025) that “the results of this qualitative research identified costs and benefits, in economic, social and environmental terms, as well as some analysis criteria, showing controversial arguments in favor, on the part of the project’s economic promoters, and, against, on the part of local social agents.” The project also undermines the legal regime governing common lands (baldios), thereby affecting the management of common lands by local communities. Civil society argues that all these concerns have not been adequately taken into consideration by authorities in environmental impact assessments and that the local population was not consulted appropriately. Nonetheless, in May 2023, the Portuguese Environmental Agency issued the conditional but favourable impact assessment, and last December, the government granted land access to Savannah Resources. Nevertheless, the European Commission in March 2025 listed the Barroso Lithium Project as a “Strategic Project” under the Critical Raw Materials Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1252) (European Commission, Decision C(2025) 1904 final Decision, Article 2 (1, no, 5) ). Exploratory drilling has commenced, and extraction is expected to begin in 2026.
Recently, the UN Compliance Committee under the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) noted on 22 August 2025 inter alia on the obligation of Portugal relating to the Barroso lithium mining project that: “effectively; (h) By failing to provide the public concerned with access from the start of the public participation procedure to all documents relevant to the decision-making on the Barroso mine project held at that time by the competent public authority, the Party concerned failed to comply with article 6 (6) of the Convention” and that; “(i) By maintaining a legal framework that does not require all documents relevant to the decision-making held at that time by the competent public authority to be made accessible to the public concerned during the public participation procedure, the Party concerned fails to comply with article 6 (6) of the Convention.” (ACCC/C/2021/186, para. 185). The Committee noted that procedural deficiencies have plagued the process at the Portuguese Environmental Agency.
Bottom-up approaches
The project, therefore, highlights the risk of tension between the progress necessary for the European Union and environmental projects. Compared to other social movements, for instance in Serbia, protests here are more minor but significant, reflecting how business environmental standards can be enforced from the bottom up when institutions exclude the population from decision-making. There are both advantages and disadvantages to bottom-up approaches. On one hand, they can empower community engagement and increase public participation. They can propel public policy and normative reform, thereby increasing corporate accountability and improving the rule of law. Additionally, a bottom-up approach may improve access to remedies for rights holders in affected regions.
Bottom-up approaches also have disadvantages, for instance, state and corporate pressure, as well as the prosecution of human rights and environmental defenders, among other issues (Saleth, Varov, 2023). The impact can sometimes be limited—for instance, in Portugal, protests have not suspended the project. There are also questions over the capacity to reform legislation, the ability to influence institutions, and limited expertise. In terms of complementarity, bottom-up enforcement can enhance access to justice, foster momentum for cases before domestic and international courts—such as the European Court of Human Rights—and promote policy development and the adoption of binding legislation. Portugal, as one of the few Member States in the European Union, has yet to adopt a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights.
How to move forward?
Lithium exploitation appears necessary in today’s European economy, where lithium is in short supply. Nonetheless, it is required to engage local communities in conducting rigorous environmental impact assessments. Those assessments should include both short, medium and long-term impacts. The lithium projects should be feasible only if they are sustainable and do not disrupt the traditional way of life. The Green transition also needs access to critical minerals. However, states should ensure that local communities do not bear the burden of extraction, but also enjoy its benefits. The Lithium Project in Covas do Barroso embodies both objectives and shortcomings of the energy transition. Its vast lithium reserves are much needed in Europe and offer hope for great supply security, economic competitiveness, and green transition away from fossil fuel-based energy. However, these possibilities are intertwined with significant environmental, cultural, and democratic risks—risks that the affected community in Barroso perceives as deeply profound.
The question which arises from a project in Portugal is how to move forward. Should such potential lithium extraction projects be prohibited altogether? Should we adopt an absolute ban approach if the project appears to interfere with socio-economic and monetary stability in any way, even slightly? Alternatively, should we disregard socio-economic livelihood risks and environmental protection concerns in order to generate materials for the green transition, a greener Europe, and to steer European industry toward more sustainable practices, as required by several EU law–binding documents? Should one take a middle approach, a reasonable approach, which, as a funder of UNGPs on business and human rights principles generally advocate, is about mitigating risk, minimising risk, and responding to challenges that arise in supply chain management? Projects like the one in northern Portugal are not only about the green transition, but also about the geostrategic security of the European Union, making it more autonomous and self-sufficient in supplying raw materials for the production of batteries and other essential equipment for the green transition. It is perhaps a simpler thing to argue for a more inclusive approach theoretically. On the other hand, it is more challenging to translate the practice in a way that ensures the identity, cultural heritage, and socio-economic livelihoods of the local population are not endangered. Certainly, when the risks identified by scientists pose a threat to water, soil, air, and biodiversity, regional and state authorities should reconsider their decisions.
What is definitely needed is a more inclusive approach that involves local populations and strong institutions based on the rule of law. Companies, in this regard, should cooperate with local populations and institutions throughout the process from beginning to end, and allow for oversight, even if that reduces, by a certain margin, the profits they seek to achieve with such projects. Categorical approaches may not yield results, but more inclusive approaches, however challenging, are necessary because they encompass a wide range of considerations, including those related to individuals who have long resided in that area. They also have a sentimental connection to it, which should not be undermined or disregarded. That is why actors involved should be careful, should cooperate with state institutions, and the state itself must ensure protection. It is worrisome that, as is the case following the recent UN committee decision, Portuguese authorities have failed to proceed on the basis of the rule of law in relation to this project. Local villages must be more involved and afforded greater consideration in potential trade-offs, particularly in protecting their socio-economic livelihoods and cultural identity.
Stakeholders need to carefully consider whether the economic and industrial benefits of the Covas de Barosso project outweigh its socio-economic and environmental impacts. Surely, State authorities and companies should give the local community a larger voice in the administrative process of approving environmental licences and offer solutions that would also benefit their village. If a consensus is reached, supervision needs to be strict, and the company and state authorities must mitigate the negative impacts. Otherwise, what is meant to be part of a clean future risks becoming yet another example of environmental sacrifice zones, where remote communities shoulder burdens for the benefit of others.
Sources
Brussels, 25.3.2025 C(2025) 1904 final COMMISSION DECISION of 25.3.2025 recognising certain critical raw material projects as Strategic Projects under Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Cristina Chaves, Elma Pereira, Paula Ferreira, António Guerner Dias (2021), Concerns about lithium extraction: A review and application for Portugal, The Extractive Industries and Society, Volume 8, Issue 3, 100928,
Giacomo Sini, Dario Antonelli (2024), ‘Everything Here is Green’: Lithium Mining Complicates the Green Transition, Lithium mining encroaching on one Portuguese village shows the need to broaden the scope of sustainability, 16 February 2024, The Progressive Magazine, https://progressive.org/latest/%E2%80%98everything-here-is-green%E2%80%99-lithium-mining-sini-antonelli-20240216/?
Hugo Pereira, Joaquim Leite, Cecília Carmo (2025). Balancing Costs and Benefits in Lithium Mining: Management and Sustainability Challenges in Barroso, Portugal. IBIMA Business Review, Article ID 478675.
Leonie Alena Saleth, Ingrid Varov (2023). Anticipating lithium extraction in northern Portugal: A Sacrifice Zone in the making?, Journal of Political Ecology 30(1), 294–315.
Marta Vidal (2023), A lithium ‘gold mine’ is buried under one of Europe’s last heritage farming systems, Mongabay, 11 December 2023,
Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020 (Text with EEA relevance), PE/78/2023/REV/1, OJ L, 2024/1252, 3.5.2024.
The UN Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, Findings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2021/186 concerning compliance by Portugal Adopted by the Compliance Committee, 22 August 2025.
Esohap 