Plans to dispose of mining waste in Norway’s Arctic Ocean worries Sámi fishers, herders – Mongabay

Report on the Nussir Copper Mine Project and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Project Overview and SDG Context

A report on the planned Nussir copper mine in Hammerfest, Norway, operated by Canadian company Blue Moon Metals, reveals significant conflicts with multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The project, which involves the submarine disposal of mining waste into the protected Repparfjord, poses direct threats to environmental integrity and the rights and livelihoods of the Indigenous Sámi people. While designated by the European Commission as a strategic project to support the green energy transition (aligning with SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy and SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), its operational plans challenge the core principles of sustainable development.

2.0 Environmental Impacts: A Direct Challenge to SDG 14 and SDG 15

The project’s environmental strategy is in direct opposition to the goals of protecting marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

2.1 Marine Ecosystem Degradation (SDG 14: Life Below Water)

• Waste Disposal Plan: The project is permitted to dispose of 1 to 2 million metric tons of mining tailings annually into Repparfjord, a nationally protected salmon fjord.
• Habitat Destruction: This practice, known as submarine tailings disposal (STD), is expected to smother the seabed, destroying stationary benthic organisms and vital habitats for marine life. This directly contravenes Target 14.2, which calls for the sustainable management and protection of marine and coastal ecosystems.
• Impact on Biodiversity: The fjord is a critical habitat for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and supports populations of Atlantic cod, pollock, and herring. The introduction of tailings containing copper and nickel sulfides threatens this biodiversity.
• Historical Precedent: Mining operations in the 1970s led to the near-total disappearance of certain organisms and ongoing metal leeching from the seabed, demonstrating the long-term failure to protect life below water.

2.2 Terrestrial Ecosystem Disruption (SDG 15: Life on Land)

1. Reindeer Herding Areas: The mine is located near important breeding and migration grounds for reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), a cornerstone of Sámi culture and a key terrestrial species.
2. Operational Disturbances: Construction, noise, and pollution from the mine are anticipated to disrupt reindeer husbandry, threatening a traditional livelihood and cultural practice integral to the region. This undermines Target 15.1, concerning the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.
3. Lack of Consensus: The Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration has recommended against issuing the permit due to the cumulative negative impact on reindeer husbandry.

3.0 Socio-Economic Impacts and Indigenous Rights: Contradicting SDG 1, SDG 2, and SDG 10

The project disproportionately affects the Indigenous Sámi community, undermining goals related to poverty, food security, and equality.

3.1 Threats to Livelihoods and Food Security

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The Sámi people’s livelihoods are intrinsically linked to fishing in Repparfjord and reindeer herding. The degradation of these natural resources directly threatens their economic stability and food security.
• Cultural Erosion: Community members express fear that the loss of traditional practices like fishing and herding will lead to a loss of cultural identity and power.

3.2 Inequality and Indigenous Rights

• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The project highlights a significant power imbalance, where the economic interests of a mining corporation and broader geopolitical goals for critical minerals are prioritized over the rights and well-being of an Indigenous community.
• Lack of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent: Opposition from Sámi representatives and the Reindeer Husbandry Administration indicates that the concerns of the most affected community have not been adequately addressed, challenging principles of inclusive decision-making.

4.0 Governance and Responsible Production: A Conflict with SDG 12 and SDG 16

The approval and framing of the project raise critical questions about governance and what constitutes responsible production.

4.1 Regulatory Framework and Justifications

1. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The Norwegian Environment Agency has permitted the project, distinguishing the “placing” of waste in a controlled manner from “dumping.” However, this distinction is contested by environmental groups and local communities, who argue that the outcome—destruction of the seabed—remains the same. This points to a conflict in institutional interpretation of environmental protection.
2. Strong Opposition: Widespread opposition from Sámi groups, environmental activists, and local political representatives indicates a failure in governance to reconcile conflicting interests and protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems.

4.2 The Paradox of “Green” Mining

• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): The project exemplifies a critical paradox where the extraction of materials for the “green transition” utilizes production methods that are environmentally destructive and socially inequitable. The practice of STD is banned in many jurisdictions and is fundamentally at odds with sustainable production patterns.
• Strategic Importance vs. Local Impact: The EU’s designation of the mine as a strategic project for mineral self-reliance creates a direct conflict between continental policy objectives and the achievement of SDGs at the local level.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 14: Life Below Water

This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The central conflict revolves around the plan to dispose of millions of metric tons of mining waste into Repparfjord, a “nationally protected salmon fjord.” This action directly threatens marine life, habitats, and the overall health of the marine ecosystem. The article states that Sámi residents fear the tailings “will destroy vital marine habitats for salmon” and other species like Atlantic cod, pollock, and Atlantic herring.

SDG 15: Life on Land

The article connects the mining operation to terrestrial ecosystems by highlighting its impact on reindeer. It mentions that the mine is “located near an important reindeer breeding ground” and that its operations will “disrupt traditional reindeer breeding and migration areas.” This poses a threat to the reindeer population and the land they depend on, which is a core concern of SDG 15.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The article presents a conflict between different forms of economic activity. While the Nussir copper mine is framed as a “commercially viable project” contributing to economic growth, it directly threatens the traditional livelihoods of the Sámi people. The text explicitly states that Indigenous Sámi fishers “depend on [the fjord] for their livelihoods” and that the project will lead to “reduced viability of the renewable resources in the ocean, and one less place for … people to get food and revenue from the fisheries.” This highlights the tension between industrial development and the sustainability of traditional economies.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The issue is deeply connected to the rights and well-being of the Indigenous Sámi people. Their opposition to the project, based on cultural and economic grounds, is a central theme. The quote from a local representative, “There is an ominous feeling that individual and collective rights are not real,” points to a power imbalance and the marginalization of an Indigenous group’s interests in the face of industrial development, which is a key concern of SDG 10.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The article’s focus on the disposal of mining waste, or “tailings,” directly relates to sustainable production patterns. The debate over “placing” versus “dumping” the waste and the discussion of submarine tailings disposal (STD) as a waste management practice fall under the purview of achieving environmentally sound management of waste to minimize adverse impacts on the environment.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The conflict involves governmental bodies (Norwegian government, Norwegian Environment Agency) granting permits despite strong opposition from Indigenous groups and environmental activists. The article notes that the “Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration in West Finnmark ‘recommends not issuing the permit applied for,'” yet the project was approved. This raises questions about whether decision-making processes are responsive, inclusive, and representative, which is a central tenet of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   • Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities. The article directly addresses this target by discussing the disposal of “between 1 million and 2 million metric tons of mining waste” annually from a land-based mine into the fjord.
   • Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts. The plan to deposit tailings in Repparfjord, a “nationally protected salmon fjord” and a “critical habitat for Atlantic salmon,” is a direct threat to the protection of this marine ecosystem.

2. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species. The article states the mine will “disrupt traditional breeding and migration areas for reindeer,” which constitutes a degradation of their natural habitat.

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all. The article implies a threat to this target by explaining how the mine jeopardizes the livelihoods of Sámi fishers and reindeer herders who depend on these activities for “food and revenue.”

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of … ethnicity, origin … or other status. The struggle of the Sámi Indigenous people against the government-approved mining project highlights a challenge in ensuring their political and economic inclusion in decisions that affect their ancestral lands and livelihoods.

5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle … and significantly reduce their release to … water … to minimize their adverse impacts on … the environment. The entire debate around the submarine tailings disposal (STD) method, which involves releasing waste containing “copper sulfide and nickel sulfide” into the fjord, is central to this target.

6. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The fact that the project was permitted despite the recommendation against it by the Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration and strong opposition from the Sámi community suggests a failure to achieve inclusive and participatory decision-making.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators:

1. Indicators for SDG 14 (Life Below Water)

   • Volume of pollutants: The article specifies a key indicator for marine pollution (Target 14.1) by stating the mine will deposit “between 1 million and 2 million metric tons of tailings at the bottom of the fjord annually.”
   • Ecosystem health and biodiversity: The article implies that the health of fish stocks, particularly “Atlantic salmon,” and the presence or absence of key species can be used as indicators. The reference to a past study where “benthic foraminifera … disappeared almost entirely” after previous mining serves as a concrete example of an indicator for measuring ecosystem damage (Target 14.2).

2. Indicators for SDG 15 (Life on Land)

   • Habitat integrity: The status of “traditional reindeer breeding and migration areas” serves as an indicator. Measuring the extent of disruption or encroachment on these specific areas would quantify the impact on the terrestrial ecosystem (Target 15.5).

3. Indicators for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

   • Viability of traditional livelihoods: The article implies that the number of people able to derive “food and revenue from the fisheries” and from “reindeer farming” can be used as an indicator. A decline in these numbers would measure the negative economic impact on the local community (Target 8.5).

4. Indicators for SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)

   • Concentration of harmful substances: The article mentions that the tailings contain “residues such as quartz, feldspar and mica, as well as small volumes of copper sulfide and nickel sulfide.” An implied indicator would be the measured concentration of these substances in the fjord’s water and seabed to assess the effectiveness of the waste management plan (Target 12.4).

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: news.mongabay.com