The matter in brief: – The Nature Conservation Association and Nature and Youth have sued the state for the permit to dump mining waste in the Førdefjorden. The verdict was handed down today.- The mining company is already underway with the construction of the plant, and production is to start later this year.- The question the court will decide on is whether the license for a sea deposit for mine waste in the Førdefjord is in accordance with EU law, as Norway are obliged by through the EEA agreement. – The plaintiffs believe that the state has committed an offense against the water framework directive and the mineral waste directive. The summary is made by an AI service from OpenAi. The content is quality assured by news’s journalists before publication. Naturvernforbundet and Natur og Ungdom have lost the Fjord lawsuit in the Oslo district court. The state is supported for its permission to dump mining waste in Førdefjorden. The verdict was handed down on Wednesday afternoon. The political battle over the sea landfill has been going on more or less since 2006, and due to the “complexity and duration” of the case, the Oslo district court announced in November that they had to postpone the verdict. – We are both angry and disappointed. This judgment is a crisis for the legal protection of nature in Norway. The state has allowed the use of Førdefjorden as a waste site for the mining industry, and the district court has supported it, says Truls Gulowsen, leader of the Nature Conservancy. The mining company is already underway with the construction of the plant, and production is to start later this year. The conflict around Førdefjorden summarized. Norway is one of the very few countries in the world that still allows residual waste from mining to be stored in the sea. To this, it has been objected that Norway is also one of the few countries in the world with deep fjords, and that it is fundamentally different to dump mining waste directly into the sea and to deposit masses down in a sinkhole. – This judgment is completely wrong! The Fjord lawsuit has revealed major weaknesses and errors in the way Norwegian governing powers treat nature. We are in a nature crisis, and it is high time that we stop the destruction of the nature on which we are completely dependent, says newly elected leader Gytis Blazevicius in Natur og Ungdom. – I am confident that we will win, says leader of the Nature Conservation Association, Truls Gulowsen. Here together with Gina Gylver. Photo: Torbjørn Brovold / news – We have both the law, reason and nature on our side, says Truls Gulowsen, leader of the Nature Conservation Association. Photo: Torbjørn Brovold / news The company Nordic Mining has worked since 2006 to extract the mineral rutile. They have also planned the extraction of garnet. Photo: Torbjørn Brovold / news – Upheld on all counts The government attorney has prosecuted the case on behalf of the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Ministry of Trade and Fisheries. – The district court agrees with the state on all key points, and the state is naturally very satisfied with the result. It is a particularly extensive and thorough judgement, where all relevant questions in the case are given a detailed treatment based on the evidence, says lawyer Henrik Vaaler. – The case about the mine at Engebø has caused a lot of debate. The district court gives a thorough assessment of many of the questions that have been discussed, and concludes that these have been adequately addressed. The state hopes that it can form the basis for a good and knowledge-based debate about the use of marine landfills in the future. The state has given the mining company Nordic Mining a license to operate open pit mining in Engebøfjellet. Photo: Oddmund Haugen / news China controls 98 percent of the rare earth species that Europe needs for the green shift. In addition, the Chinese have the bay and both ends in several of the value chains. Photo: Oddmund Haugen / news In addition to the “primary argument”, the plaintiffs claim that the sea landfill is in breach of the Pollution Act (paragraph 11) and the Basic Law (paragraph 112). They will also emphasize that there is a better alternative to landfill: so-called underground mining. Photo: Oddmund Haugen / news – The geopolitical situation means that the mineral industry faces important years. Minerals are about to become scarce, says parliamentary representative from Sogn og Fjordane, Olve Grotle (H). Here together with Høgre colleague Bård Ludvig Thorheim. Photo: Oddmund Haugen / news The question the court decided on is whether the permit for a sea dump for mining waste in the Førdefjord is in accordance with EU law, which Norway is bound by through the EEA agreement. Yes, says the state. No, claim the plaintiffs, and refer to “clear procedural errors”. Quite concretely, the plaintiffs believe that the state has violated two principles: the water framework directive and the mineral waste directive (more on these below). The main points in the mood When the court proceedings were recorded in the Oslo District Court on 18 September, the Nature Conservation Association and Nature and Youth filed a claim that the license for the mining company Nordic Mining is invalid. The lawsuit is based on the following legal objections: Løyva is based on an incorrect understanding of EEA legal environmental requirements; the water framework directive and the mineral waste directive. There is a better alternative which the administration was obliged to sort out and assess. The environmental consequences will be more serious than what is envisaged in the licence. Six reasons for invalidity The Norwegian Confederation of Nature Conservation and Nature and Youth listed six reasons why the license for mining with a sea dump in the Førdefjord is invalid. The permit for mining with a sea deposit is invalid due to: Incorrect interpretation of the water regulations (§ 12 (2) letter b) – it is not permitted to pollute a fjord and degrade the water quality The condition in the water regulations has not been met – only measures with overriding societal interests can be permitted An approved waste management plan was not in place before the license to operate a mineral waste facility was granted. The environmental consequences of a marine landfill have been underestimated and insufficiently compensated. A form of operation without a sea landfill should have been chosen or paid for. The permitted pollution is too extensive. The number shows the maximum amount that is allowed to be released. The map is updated as of January 2022. Photo: Havforskingsinstituttet Criticism of the verdict Shortly after the verdict came the first political reactions. Raudt reacts by stating that the legislation must be tightened. – This judgment stands in stark contrast to the knowledge we have about nature and the state it is in, and if the legislation cannot protect the vulnerable fjord nature from encroachment, we must tighten up, says Sofie Marhaug, parliamentary representative from Raudt. Discovered vulnerable and endangered species in the fjord When the Norwegian Environment Agency assessed the application, they concluded that the alternative of landfill on land or in fresh water “will not be significantly better” than fjord landfill, but significantly more expensive. In addition to the legal twists and turns, the issue of marine landfill has gained new political momentum with repeated cases. As recently as last summer, the dispute gained new momentum when the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (HI) discovered more vulnerable and endangered species in the Førdefjord than were known. It is the state that is being sued, but the mining company has previously told news that they are “confident that the operating license has been granted on a good and legal basis, after good and long assessments in many bodies”. What are the environmental objections to sea landfill? Read the article at verkächt.no here. Regardless of the outcome, Professor Sigrid Eskeland Schütz at the University of Bergen believes that the sea landfill standards can be noted as a partial victory. – As I see it, this court case has already had something to say. Through the lawsuit, a point of view has emerged which means that the administration has changed its practice.
ttn-69
The verdict was handed down today – news Vestland
