The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance and the Critical Raw Materials Act
April 8, 2025
What is the CRMA?
Entering into force in May 2024,the European Union (EU) Critical Raw Materials Act 2024 (CRMA)1 aims to strengthen the critical raw materials capacities of the EU along all stages of the value chain. It also aims to increase EU resilience by reducing dependencies, increasing preparedness and promoting supply chain sustainability and circularity.
What is the IRMA?
The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) is a coalition of NGOs, affected communities, purchasers, investors, mining companies, and labor unions. Each sector has equal voice in IRMA governance.
- IRMA is a high-bar standard to drive responsible mining, defined through the IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining.
- IRMA is a global organization managing IRMA standards and the system for independent third-party audits against those standards.
- IRMA is an internationally recognised voluntary assurance program aiming to improve mining operations’ performance.
Central to the value of IRMA assessment is its independence. Mines that choose to undertake an IRMA assessment have their environmental and social performance measured by independent audit teams, ensuring transparency and accountability.
What is the relationship between the CRMA and IRMA?
The IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining (Standard)2, introduced in June 2018, is the mechanism through which mining projects can achieve compliance with the CRMA.
The Standard is an international benchmark, required under the CRMA for critical minerals production and import in the EU.
The new CRMA encourages companies along the raw materials value chain to develop projects that meet a newly created Strategic Project designation. IRMA assessments can help support the applications of mining and processing projects within this designation.
How does IRMA apply to Cultural Heritage?
The Standard is applicable to all mines applying for IRMA certification that have the potential to impact Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage.
Within the Standard, cultural heritage is defined as having both tangible and intangible elements that are not necessarily place or object based. It acknowledges the impact of mining on both the physical and intangible aspects of cultural heritage for example “as a result of inappropriate visitation of sites or the inappropriate use of traditional knowledge.”
Cultural heritage is divided into 3 categories – critical, replicable and non-replicable.
Critical cultural heritage is independently defined as being internationally recognised heritage of communities who use, or have used within living memory, the cultural heritage for long-standing cultural purposes; legally protected; and including natural areas with cultural and/or spiritual value such as sacred groves, sacred bodies of water and waterways, sacred trees, and sacred rocks.
Protection of critical cultural heritage is required under the Standard. This is undertaken in collaboration with affected communities to:
- negotiate measures to protect critical cultural heritage,
- provide equitable outcomes for affected communities, and
- document the mutually accepted negotiation process and outcomes.
Where impacts may occur to the critical cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples negotiation shall take place through the free, prior and informed consent process outlined in the Standard, unless otherwise specified by the Indigenous Peoples.
Replicable Cultural Heritage includes tangible forms of cultural heritage that can themselves be moved to another location or that can be replaced by a similar structure or natural features to which the cultural values can be transferred by appropriate measures.
Archaeological or historical sites may be considered replicable where the particular eras and cultural values they represent are well represented by other sites and/or structures.
Non-Replicable Cultural Heritage is tangible cultural heritage that cannot be moved or replicated.
Prior to the development of a new mine, or when there are significant changes to mining-related activities, the operating company shall undertake a screening process to identify risks and potential impacts to replicable, non-replicable and critical cultural heritage from the proposed mining-related activities.
The application of the Standard to both new and existing mines has some small differences but, where such exist, both must seek to achieve the objectives of the Standard. Cultural heritage management plans are required of both new and existing mines in areas where cultural heritage is expected to be found.
Specifically, this occurs in relation to existing mines where consent may not have been provided, or cultural heritage assessments not undertaken, during the development stage.
In Australia, where native title processes have facilitated free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in agreement making, companies must demonstrate that the processes whereby the agreement was reached conforms with exceeds the Standard level.
How does the Standard apply to Intangible Cultural Heritage?
Other than the protections afforded under Cultural Heritage within the Standard, there also exist provisions for commercial use of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH).
In this capacity, Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK) should be the ICH most considered. The Standard defines that commercialisation should not be undertaken by a proponent unless a good faith negotiation process that results in a documented outcome has been undertaken; there is provision of fair and equitable sharing of benefits from commercialisation of such knowledge, innovation, or practice, consistent with local customs and traditions; and FPIC processes have been implemented.
How is it enforceable?
IRMA certification is required to fulfil obligations under the CRMA. For new mines, IRMA certification through application of the Standard is not possible if a mining project does not obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples.
How does it relate to FPIC?
All mines, both new and existing must have in place provisions to realise FPIC. Whilst new mines can build FPIC into development processes, existing mines may face situations where FPIC was not obtained in the past. In these instances, operating companies are expected to demonstrate that they are operating in a manner that seeks to achieve IRMA objectives regarding FPIC.
For example, companies may demonstrate that they have the free, informed consent of indigenous peoples for current operations by providing evidence of signed or otherwise verified agreements, or, in the absence of agreements, demonstrate that they have a process in place to respond to past and present community concerns and to remedy and/or compensate for past impacts on indigenous peoples’ rights and interests.
In situations where there are proposed changes to a company’s plans or activities that may significantly change the nature or degree of an existing impact, or result in additional impacts on indigenous peoples’ rights, lands, territories, resources, properties, livelihoods, cultures or religions, FPIC must also be achieved.
The key elements relating to the provision of FPIC in IRMA certification are:
- Mines must demonstrate that they have obtained the consent of Indigenous People (this applies to new mines and to existing mines when changes to the operation may result in new or increased impacts to Indigenous People).
- If Indigenous People do not consent to the mining activity, it should not proceed.
- Mines should facilitate capacity building and technical support to enable indigenous people to fully participate in the FPIC process.
- In instances where no FPIC protocol exists (such as existing mines), there may be mutual agreement on what processes should be followed.
- If consent is acquired, Indigenous People are involved in monitoring to ensure that commitments are met.
- Engagement and dialogue between the mine and Indigenous Peoples continue throughout the life of the project.
Critically, IRMA will not certify a new mine unless it has obtained FPIC from potentially affected indigenous peoples. This also applies to withdrawal of consent by Indigenous Peoples. If, at any point during engagement with the operating company, the affected communities do not wish to proceed with FPIC-related discussions, the company shall recognise that it does not have consent. The company may approach Indigenous Peoples to renew discussions only if agreed to by the Indigenous Peoples’ representatives.
How does it relate to Traditional Owner Representative Institutions?
Aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),the Standard identifies that proponents shall “shall collaborate with Indigenous Peoples’ representatives” and must “identify the appropriate means of engagement for each group of indigenous peoples (e.g., tribe, nation, population)”.
UNDRIP has a particular relevance to this discussion in two respects. First with respect to the concept of the Traditional Owner Representative Institution (TORI) itself. The second point of relevance goes to the application of the FPIC principle and the potential for benefit sharing agreements that arise from it.
The relevant provisions in respect of both points are Articles 26 and 32. Under these provisions Indigenous Peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures.
Article 26 Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use …
Article 32 States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources….
Footnotes
1 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
2 IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining IRMA-STD-001, June 2018
More Insights
The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance and the Critical Raw Materials Act
The EU Critical Raw Materials Act 2024 has forced industry standard development — but some are better than others.
