RE: Update on Kallak14 Jul 2021 13:02
One thing I wasn't sure about.
where he said that "vi skickar det här ärendet vidare till UNESCO så att vi får deras synpunkter och därefter kan gå till be****. Då är det färdigberett, och då är också min bedömning att det be**** som regeringen fattar håller rättsligt" (Translation: "we are forwarding this matter to UNESCO so that we can receive their views and then take a decision. Then it is ready, and then my assessment is that the decision made by the government is legal").
Kallak is outside of Laponia. Laponia World Heritage status was in place when the exploration permits were issued and Kallak was declared an area of national interest for minerals. The process BEM followed was by the law. I don't know how the Unesco comments could be considered to affect the legality of the Kallak mine, even if UNESCO replied that it will affect the World Heritage Status of Laponia (which it didn't), how do the UNESCO comments affect the law.
When I read this, I don't know if Baylan is using the UNESCO comments to enable him to say yes or no. Our key argument has always been that we followed the legal process, and by law we should be awarded the concession. Maybe it will help that Baylan is now minister for rural affairs and will have to answer to the people of Jokkmokk if the decision is no, as well as the courts.
Xeno, any thoughts from the local perspective please.