RE: Thanks Braintec...25 Apr 2021 12:05
The reasons are mainly two.
Firstly, it is a matter of simply not knowing enough about the deposit, the land and the water and what a future mining operation should look like already when applying for a processing concession. There is therefore too little factual basis at that stage to be able to say how a nearby Natura 2000 area could be affected.
- You have to make a large number of assumptions about the deposit, the land and the water. A Natura 2000 test at a premature stage becomes almost cosmetic because it probably needs to be redone in connection with the next step, the environmental test, says Maria Sunér. - It has not been process-economically or legally secure, a pure waste of tax money.
Secondly, it is a matter of the government's decision increasing the uncertainty for the extensive investments required on the road to a mine establishment. Sweden has already plummeted on the international ranking of the attractiveness of mining countries. The mining industry needs increased clarity, more predictable and more efficient permit processes in order to remain strong, not more regulatory hassles.
With Thursday's decision in the House, the government's decision is being challenged and the Riksdag is sending the ball over to the government again. They must return to the Riksdag no later than 30 June 2022 with proposals which mean that a Natura 2000 permit shall not be a prerequisite for a processing concession to be granted.
- The industry is relieved that the committee initiative was voted through, but thinks that the follow-up is crazy too far in the future. Our hope is that the government will return sooner, says Maria Sunér. There are good reasons to handle the case urgently, as the government's review of Laver took about four years. Now the government must show that it does not oppose the mining industry with more protracted processes.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
