report continued30 May 2018 18:29
Many mining companies perceive today the outcome of the permit process as relatively arbitrary, and some think that it seems random. Application of laws and regulations, both at national and EU level, contributes to institutional risk. One reason for the uncertainty is that junior mining companies perceive the need to understand the Swedish licensing process. Not least, in comparison with some other countries, it is unclear who is responsible for various decisions concerning the state process as a whole, for example, who decides to establish a nature reserve. Unlike the junior companies, the big mining companies in Sweden often find it easier to handle this uncertainty because they are established in Sweden and can more easily follow the Swedish debate.
One important reason, and at the same time a policy issue, that the licensing process is perceived as more uncertain than in third countries, is a number of EU environmental directives that negatively affect new investment in mines in the EU. The developed national and European practices make it likely that the existing Swedish division of the permit process in two parts does not meet the EU requirements for a comprehensive and complete environmental assessment as required by the EU's Natura 2000 Directive. This creates uncertainty and a need for change in the prevailing Swedish division in an admissibility and environmental permit test. However, changes that imply that part of the admissibility test takes place in the environmental permit test probably leads to a less attractive risk profile for investments in new mines than currently exists.
Market risk is great for innovation-critical metals and minerals
A particular challenge for the recovery of innovation-critical metals and minerals in Sweden is that the two major mining companies dominate exploration. Approximately 75 percent of the total exploration in Sweden is carried out by the two companies, which is comparable to the fact that about 50 percent of the exploration in Australia and Canada takes place by junior mining companies. One reason for this difference is the incentive programs available to stimulate the prospecting of junior companies in these countries.
The Riksdag should now decide what the Swedish state-of-the-art process should look like: in the short term, however, a change in the Swedish state-of-the-art process may be necessary in order to eliminate the ambiguity of what is applicable. From an attractiveness perspective, it is important that as much as possible of the admissibility test remains in the early process of the license, ie in the concession test.
The government should introduce a "one stop shop": In order to create a clearer licensing process, the government should create a so-called "one stop shop" which means that investors only need to contact an authority that coordinates the entire licensing process.
The government should instruct the dialogue meetings: Appropriate autho
Sign In
Follow the stocks
