Happy 400th Anniversary WS.....we love you still. :-
Andy, if I may quote from one of your historic posts, I think this is one of your best:
"Indeed - I sincerely want the CAB to realize that the stance from the closest Sami village - "our whole existence is depending upon this small area of land for the reindeer" - is not true at all, and that co-existence is the way to go. Hopefully this mining project will serve as an example for the coming years in northern Sweden, where it began grim but resolved itself nicely in the end."
In view of the location of Kallak, then I would agree with your observations. Those who don't want the project to be given the green light will dredge up anything they can, regardless of whether any actual connection to Kallak exists.
The law will decide and it seems we have satisfied all relevant criteria for a Licence.
It doesn't then matter what the negatives say, as compelling to them as they feel the argument is for not having a mine.
Will probably drop a few percent today, the de ramp brigade are having a good day. I remember numerous stories put out there over the years that tried to mess up this share. The tactics of the Sani sympathizers have at times been disgusting with numerous dirty tricks. I think we still have a while to wait before the decision and no doubt no matter which way it goes it wont be the end of it.
30KM is a long way. i have heard of NIMBY but this takes it to a new level of stupidity. I am thinking about protesting about a mine at whitby because it may impact me, its only 100 miles away. If the Reindeer beaters are happy thats great but lets have the hypocrites snow mobiles back. Why do we keep getting the same old re hashing of material
"6. IUCN recalls that one of the justifications for inscription under the natural criteria included “unspoilt Fennoscandian habitats [that] are contained in their entirety, supporting a diverse range of species, some being internationally threatened”. Additionally noting that whilst the concession is located 30 km outside of the property, the project area will be approximately 80km2 in size (http://beowulfmining.com/projects/development/kallak/), IUCN considers it critical to understand the potential impacts under especially criterion (vii) and (ix). 7. IUCN recalls the World Heritage Committee’s established position that mining exploration and exploitation are incompatible with World Heritage status, and that any such activities taking place outside a World Heritage property should not result in negative impacts on its OUV. 8. ICOMOS and IUCN request that an HIA and a revised EIA with a specific assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed mining on OUV, including its conditions of integrity, are submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies, and if necessary presented to the World Heritage Committee, before any irreversible decisions are made."
The actual letter can be read on the Placera forum board - I do not longer dare to use Google Translate...
"1. The Operational Guidelines paragraph 110 states clearly that ‘Impact assessments for proposed interventions are essential for all World Heritage properties’. The way these impact assessments should be carried out is set out in two publications by ICOMOS and IUCN. The ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties published in 2011, and IUCN World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment (https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_advice_note_environmental_assessment_18_11_13_iucn_template.pdf) published in 2013, have been referenced and recommended by the World Heritage Committee since that time. The purpose of HIAs and EIAs are very specifically to assess impact on the attributes of OUV and thus on OUV. Both impact assessments should be carried out routinely on all projects that might have an adverse impact on OUV, and not just when requested by the World Heritage Committee. 2. ICOMOS and IUCN note with significant concern that the Swedish Mining Inspectorate is positioned in favour of granting an Exploitation Concession on the basis that the County Administrative Board has deemed it possible to allow a mine if only the direct impacts from the exploitation site are considered. However as noted in the letter, this statement by the County Administrative Board does not take into account the indirect impacts from associated activities that extend beyond the exploitation site. The Advisory Bodies therefore consider that further information on other activities associated with the project such as road usage and development, pollution etc. are essential to assess the potential impacts on the OUV, for both cultural and natural values. 3. ICOMOS considers that a specific HIA should be undertaken for the proposed mining concession. Such a formal document should set out precisely the indirect impacts of the project on the wider landscape and assess how these might cut across traditional migration routes and herding practices in a way that might lead to adverse changes on practices within the boundaries of the property. 4. Such an HIA must be adequate for its task and would need to be assessed by the Swedish National Heritage Board and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to see that it is fit for purpose before any conclusion within it might be considered by the County Administrative Board Norrbotten, or the Mining Inspectorate. 5. ICOMOS considers that it is of the utmost importance that a fair, impartial and structured assessment of the potential impact of the mining proposals is undertaken in a way that allows all players to consider impact against the same parameters. That is the purpose of the HIA structure."
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.