In response to neutro's ominous warning, I've now looked at even more cases regarding appeals against mining concessions. The issues seem to arise when there is conflict between CAB and the Bergsstaten along with the usual Sami and nature conservation activists. One of the primary arguments is usually when certain activities should be ruled upon (during the exploitation concession process or at the Land and Environmental Court). Keep in mind that if the Supreme Court rejects appeals, Talga will already have both Natura 2000 and the Environmental permit already fully approved. So this confusion between authorities should not be a problem. We also have the added bonus that Norrbotten County Administrative Board is supportive of the Vittangi Project (CAB for many other projects are not and will often contest the mining exploitation themselves).
Below are two example quotes from different cases. These are the problems other companies ran into (because they tried for the exploitation concession before Environmental Permits):
"The County Administrative Board stressed that transports are significant and must be included in the assessment. The prospector, on the other hand, argued that the transports could not be efficiently assessed yet, and that the assessment should be postponed to the application for environmental permit, later in the process. Correspondingly, the Mining Inspectorate noted that questions about transports and road routes should be assessed during the trial at the Land and Environment Court."
"The Reindeer Herding District argued that the entire proposed mining activity should be assessed at this stage and that the trial couldn’t be limited to just assess the concession area. The prospector opposed this remark and stated that only the proposed activity should be assessed and not possible future activities. The County Administrative Board referred to the SGU Mining trial guidance, stating that the parts not included in the current trial should be assessed during the trial for environmental permit later. Lastly, the Chief Mining Inspector made clear that her decision was based on the concession area only, and not areas and/or activities outside this area."
In the examples below, with the exception of Kallak (Vittangi is outside World Heritage Laponia anyway), all other cases that were denied an exploitation concession or knocked back for further assessment were due to reindeer husbandry or Natura 2000 issues. Both non-issues for Talga if the Supreme Court rejects the appeals.
"Laver (Natura 2000), Kallak (World Heritage Laponia), Eva (National interest for reindeer husbandry), and Stekenjokk (National interest for reindeer husbandry)."
What about other national interests? Reindeer husbandry and nature conservation are given the most weight.
"Except for conflicts in land use between mining and reindeer husbandry, and mining and nature conservation, some other grounds for conflict are found throughout the documents studied. Other national interests that are brought forward in the Mining Inspectorate decisionsare national interest for outdoor recreation (Stekenjokk, Rönnbäcken), national interest for communications/transport (Kyrkberget), and national interest for cultural heritage(Stortjärnhobben). However, none of these interests, in these specific cases, were considered to be in major conflict with mining activities. Therefore, these specific land use conflicts did not affect the trial process significantly."
Lastly, here is another positive finding. The local municipality will be observers when it comes to the exploitation concession.
"Studying the decision to allow or deny exploitation concession it becomes clear that the process is rather state-centred. The decision is foremost taken by the County Administrative Board and the Mining Inspectorate, thus influenced both by the regional and the national level.The affected municipalities are invited to comment on the proposed project, like any other interested stakeholder, but do not take part in the formal decision. In addition, if the responsible authorities cannot agree on the outcome, or if the decision taken is appealed, the government take the final decision. The possibility for municipalities and other actors at the local level to affect the decision on exploitation concession is thus limited."
(20min delay)