Norway minister: Fjord mining waste case is 'my most difficult'

Norway's Climate and Environment Minister, Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, has described the controversial case of depositing mining waste into Førdefjorden as "my most difficult case."

“

This is my most difficult case as a minister.

The Supreme Court's ruling in June invalidated the government's discharge permit for the Engebøfjellet mining project, demanding a fresh assessment. This places the government in a challenging position, needing to weigh the importance of critical minerals against the environmental impact on the fjord.

Nordic Mining, the company involved, is permitted to continue its operations while its application for a three-year temporary discharge permit is under review. A decision is expected within weeks. The company extracts rutile (titanium dioxide) and garnet from Engebøfjellet and plans to deposit waste material at the bottom of Førdefjorden for 50 years, which would eliminate bottom-dwelling fauna in that area.

“

The judgment asks us to consider how important these critical minerals are against a fjord and against nature, and to weigh these against each other.

Eriksen acknowledged that many might assume the path forward is simple after the Supreme Court's clear ruling. However, he explained that the court's decision requires a more complex re-evaluation. The government must now assess the significance of critical minerals against the value of the fjord's ecosystem and determine potential interim measures.

“

This is an incredibly demanding case to handle, and demanding to bring into line with people's sense of justice.

The Supreme Court found the original 2016 discharge permit invalid because it cited expected revenues, employment, and settlement as justification, rather than "imperative reasons of overriding public interest" as required by the EU Water Framework Directive. The state must now conduct a new assessment to comply with the directive's requirements.

“

After the Water Framework Directive and the Water Directive, measures that impair the quality of a water body must be justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest.