Critical for Whom? Reassessing European Union Critical Raw Materials from the Perspective of Chile, Brazil, and Peru for Sustainable Resource Governance

Abstract

Critical raw material (CRM) lists are published almost exclusively by import-dependent economies, most notably the European Union (EU) and the United States, while many of the countries holding the world’s largest mineral reserves lack official CRM frameworks of their own. This asymmetry shapes global supply chain governance from the perspective of consuming economies rather than producing ones, with direct consequences for the sustainability and equity of the raw material flows underpinning the energy transition. This paper develops a semi-quantitative screening application, informed by EU criticality concepts—the most comprehensive publicly documented framework—applied to Chile, Brazil, and Peru, using 2025 production and reserve data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026 and building on a previously published national-scale application of the methodology to Turkey. For each country, the materials expected to lose critical status owing to leading global positions in reserves and/or production are identified, and the expected change is justified material by material. Results identify Chile as a high-confidence de-listing candidate for copper and lithium; Brazil as a de-listing candidate for several materials (most robustly niobium) and a reduced-criticality candidate for others; and Peru as a de-listing candidate for copper and arsenic. The confidence attached to each case is reported explicitly. Criticality is thus shown to be both perspective-dependent and time-dependent, as evidenced by ranking shifts between the 2023 and 2025 data. The findings support the development of national CRM frameworks that integrate environmental criticality indicators and circular economy strategies, aligning raw material governance with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.