When one says that the mines are bad for the tourism industry assumed a simplified picture of what tourism is all about. Most often, the picture is related to stereotypes, where tourists are assumed to come from overseas, be leisure travelers and have nature as the main travel reason. But this is a marginal phenomenon in tourism.
Rather, it is usually related to the attractions that have a bit of untouched nature and national parks to do. Most tourists come from Sweden, or in neighboring countries and aims to spend time in their homes, shopping, visiting friends and family or are intended to visit affärspartners. Detta have a far greater impact on the opportunities for commercial tourism and sustainable future for the residents of North and Western than our national parks have.
In addition : tourism is not any food that has no impact on the local community and environment. The concept of ecotourism is strongly questioned in research and tourism have a major negative environmental impacts, if not always local.
We argue that tourism is not at all opposed to the mining industry. On the contrary, it may be a prerequisite for a viable tourism industry in these areas. The problem lies in the prejudices that lay people have about what tourism is . Interplay and interaction effects between different businesses and activities, as well as more long-term effects on local and regional development should be more in focus.
However, there can be other reasons against mining establishments. The picture should become more nuanced. Debaters should be more interested in facts than to indulge in a mainly emotional debate that is very one-sided in favor or against mining establishments.
The prospects of developing tourism is influenced by everything from supranational bodies like the EU to small operators local clubs. Tourism has social, economic and environmental impacts on the local community but also in places tourists passing by and the area they come from.
Overall, therefore, the tourism industry is more complex than at first glance might think. This makes it difficult to argue with the simplicity that the development of the mining industry has a direct negative impact on the potential for developing tourism in these areas. To some extent , the mines rather a sort of tourist attraction which leads to consequences for the tourism industry, especially restaurants, accommodation establishments, transporters and stores.
One example . Pajala has now been the subject of a mining establishment since the mid 00s. The trend for the number of commercial guest nights in hotels, holiday villages and youth hostels (a measure of touristic activity) since the early 90's, has until 2005 been negative, a decrease of 14 percent. Compared to the development in the Kingdom (+50 per cent ) has been disastrous.
This is a typical pattern in most rural municipalities suffering from a declining population and hence reduced service. Developments since the discussions on a mine in Kaunisvaara seriously began to take off has been remarkable.
The number of guest nights during the period 2005-2012 increased from 16,939 to 39,405 ( +22,466 ), and relatively speaking, it is the entire period a larger increase than for the nation as a whole. Obviously this is from a low level, they nevertheless show what effect mining facility had on the tourism industry in Pajala. Now this only effects for accommodation facilities, but if the number of guest nights increased by such rate, so the impact on restaurants, shops and activity companies inescapable.
Research done in Pajala also shows that many tourism entrepreneurs are positive about the mining facility, including company that specializes in nature-based tourism, when they see that this is an opportunity to get more customers to the area and to maintain the basic social services, which are not only important for locals but also for tourists. Research shows that environmental impact is concentrated around the mine.
In such a large area and so sparsely populated that the municipality of Pajala, you realize that you can operate side by side with no significant adverse effects on one's own tourist business. Compared to Jokkmokk, which has similar conditions Pajala, the difference is striking. Here, the negative trend continued, although one can argue that Jokkmokk has better conditions for tourism ( the iconic mountains and national parks, and the Sami culture ) than is the case in Pajala. The trend is even more remarkable when one takes into account that the number of guest nights in Jokkmokk was much higher in the initial position, than was the case in Pajala.
There are many arguments for and against mining establishments in the North. An alleged conflict between tourism and mining are often used as an argument against the mining establishments. Developments in northern municipalities, however, shows rather the opposite.
This was written by Associate Professor Roger Marjavaara and Professor Dieter K. Müller. Both are active at the Department of Social and Economic Geography, Umeå University.
In recent years the debate on mining in importance to the North and Västerbotten plummeted.
On the one hand it is argued that this is a chance to reverse the negative population trends through the large investments that create new jobs in areas that have few other opportunities. Pajala is an example that it is possible to reverse the downward trend. Here's confidence high. The birth rate has increased significantly, resettlement income is positive, the prices of real estate has increased , new businesses is at a high level, unemployment has decreased and thus the tax base increased. The last few years, even the total population in the municipality has increased for the first time in 30 years.
On the other hand, it has been argued that the mining industry has an irreversible impact on the environment that are not proportionate to the limited lifetimes of most of the planned mining projects . There has also been discussion about the local community impacts will be limited as the possibilities for long-distance commuting means that those who work in the mining industry lives and are written elsewhere and therefore do not pay taxes where they work, fly-in -fly -out.
Arguments have also been made that the mines are in conflict with other industries in areas such as reindeer herding and tourism. The events and the debate in Jokkmokk and Storuman in the last year are examples of this. The plans for a mine in Kallak, outside Jokkmokk, has divided society and collected interests against each other.
In September 2013 went Ecotourism Society, the Swedish Tourist Association, Visit Sápmi and other tourism businesses in North and Western out with a petition to stop new mining near national parks and other high conservation nature to not give adverse impact on the potential for developing tourism in the area.
The question that interests us is whether mining and tourism are in opposition to each other or if these industries can live in symbiosis and actually reinforce each other? The issue of mining establishments are complex, we do not intend to take a position for or against mines. Rather to examine an argument that has been used frequently in the debate.
To begin with, it is clear that tourism is a heterogeneous industry. Here are a range of actors, ranging from multinational corporations to small sole traders, from agencies and municipalities to transport and accommodation facilities.
and thanks Kallak for keeping us updated all the time.
Last time BEM submitted application on 25th April, 2013 and update from BEM was in Nov, 2013 that they need to submit further documents. Now revised application has been submitted again in April, 2014 and from previous RNS it looks that decision is expected by Q2, 2014, so could be by June end I guess?
Further, it looks that BEM has money for this year and they will raise money again for Kallak South. Most probably Clive is already looking into this but may be he will wait for Kallak North license to be delivered and let SP recover a bit, but I guess once money is raised ( I hope on higher SP ) then SP will move north after that.
It has taken me some time to come to terms with the fact that some of these boards are populated by dreamers fantasists and charlatans, Of course there are a few mug punters like me, a few innocents and a few good men,,,,,but I marvel at some of the hyperbole, fantasy and downright drivel that is constantly touted about this share. In my humble opinion and I hold a healthy holding bought at considerably higher than the current sp........it is going nowhere.
KIRUNA Land and Environment Court of Appeal concluded on Friday negotiations for LKAB's permission to open a mine in Mertainen, south of Kiruna.
The case has wandered through the courts for quite some time , and several stakeholders is critical. Sea and Water Authority does not think LKAB will receive any state.
- We have always had the attitude that because there is the potential for great impact in a Natura 2000 site Kalix and Torne River systems with high natural values​​, so we consider it to be a great basis on which to exclude damage. We do not think the company has presented sufficient evidence, says Malin Aarsrud on Marine and Water Authority for Radio Norrbotten.
EPA protects an area of ​​marshland that is classified as a Natura 2000 site, and also argues that the planned heap threaten native forest.
LKAB argue that their evidence shows that there will be no impact in areas that do not justify the state for mining should be given.
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.