Mining Giant’s Push To Dig Under Pristine Finnish Wetlands Tests Eu’s Green Resolve

BRUSSELS — It’s the sort of project that should have Brussels policymakers salivating: A new mine that could deliver large quantities of EU-sourced copper, nickel and cobalt needed for the energy transition — helping to break dependency on China.

But there’s a problem.

Part of the mine being proposed by the British mining multinational Anglo American lies under pristine wetlands in northern Finland, and mining it would require bypassing the EU’s most cherished environmental protection law: the Habitats Directive.

It’s an example of a dilemma facing Europe as it attempts to break its dependence on China for the metals needed in clean energy, defense and tech. Domestic mines are crucial to reducing that dependency, but can have serious environmental impacts and often fall foul of the EU’s strict nature protection laws.

The Finnish government must now decide whether to wave it through anyway, and has asked Brussels for advice on whether it can disregard EU nature laws. A decision either way will certainly be controversial.

For the mine to go ahead, Finland will have to grant an exemption under the Habitats Directive, which protects over a thousand species of plants and animals. The government can do this without Brussels’ permission, but would risk being taken to court by the Commission.

“If we open this gate and Finland says welcome to all mining companies, even in nature conservation areas, it will be an endless line of mining companies coming to Finland and thinking Finland is a country where anything is possible for the mining sector,” said Hanna Halmeenpää, director of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and a former member of Finland’s parliament.

Emma Terämä, head of unit for biodiversity at the Ministry of Environment, said that approving the mine would not create a precedent, “as each case has different circumstances and they are assessed case by case.”

An Anglo American spokesperson said that protecting the region’s “unique biodiversity is of paramount concern,” adding: “The project is being meticulously planned to align with the mitigation hierarchy and to minimize potential impacts throughout the project’s development.”

Anglo American says it can offset the damage by restoring degraded habitats nearby. But Finland’s Forest Administration and Licensing agencies are unconvinced, saying this is not enough to make up for the damage its proposed mine would cause to the Viiankiaapa mire, one of Europe’s last string bogs — a unique type of wetland — and home to a number of birds under threat, such as the ruff.

Viiankiaapa is also protected under Finland’s own mire conservation law, which the center-right coalition government would have to change to allow the mine to go ahead. That decision will fall ultimately upon the Finnish Parliament.

All this complicates the progress of the Sakatti mine, which is designated as a ‘strategic’ project under the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, which aims to realize Europe’s ambition of reducing dependency on Chinese minerals. Underneath the ecologically preserved site are five of the 17 minerals on its strategic raw materials list, along with gold and silver. 

Anglo American says Sakatti could double the country’s copper production and increase nickel output by 25%. The company also claims that the mine could add almost half a billion euros annually to Finland’s economic output.

Nickel and copper are essential for renewable energy. Nickel is a key ingredient in lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles, and copper is a conductor used in anything that uses electricity, from power grids and EVs to solar panels and wind turbines.

The government in Helsinki has asked Brussels to weigh in before it decides whether to make an exception to the EU’s nature rules. If it gets the green light, it would be the first time in the country’s history that a mine has been granted such an exemption.

“As the assessment is ongoing, we cannot indicate when the Commission opinion will be adopted or comment further at this stage,” a Commission spokesperson said. 

Mining vs nature

A recent investigation by Climate Home News revealed that 11 of the EU’s 23 strategic mining projects under the first round of the CRMA lie within one kilometer of the Natura 2000 network — a huge network of European nature reserves that are protected under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives — while three directly overlap, including Sakatti.

Finnish Green MEPs Maria Ohisalo and Ville Niinistö have also pressed the Commission on whether allowing the mine could set a precedent for damaging other protected areas, and whether its EU “strategic” status is being used to justify weakening nature protections.

Under the Habitats Directive, developers must prove that their projects will not harm protected Natura 2000 sites. Exceptions are possible when no alternatives exist, and the project is justified by overriding reasons of public interest.

Compensatory measures must also be put in place to ensure the network of Natura 2000 sites — which span almost 20% of the EU’s terrain — is protected overall. 

These strict obligations have drawn criticism from some developers, and the European Commission is currently considering revising the Habitats Directive — along with its sister law, the Birds Directive — as part of a push to cut regulations on businesses to boost competitiveness.

In the case of the Finnish mine, Anglo American argues its tunnels would be accessed from outside the reserve, with all above-ground structures outside it. But the Licensing Agency and Forest Administration say the mine would severely impact groundwater levels and harm the habitats and species that depend on the wetland.

Brussels wants more information from Anglo American to help reach its verdict, and has requested more details on how the mine would harm nature and how much of the seven minerals Sakatti can produce annually to determine whether the mine’s benefits justify the harm done. 

Finland’s Licensing Agency, which the government relies on for making a decision, found that Anglo American’s compensation plan may only protect three of the 12 protected habitats and species the mine would impact, due to concerns over groundwater levels which are fundamental to a bog’s ecosystem.

The water in Viiankiaapa is rich in nutrients, and the company predicts the groundwater will drop by up to 30 centimeters — the company has tried to reduce the potential damage by excluding a smaller, nearby deposit from the project.

The mining company is already trying to make up for the potential damage through voluntary measures.

“For example, we have already acquired and protected nearly 3,000 [hectares] of old-growth forest in Inari, Lapland. This area compensates for the impact of the mine on the commercial forest outside the protected area and, to date, remains the largest voluntary ecological compensation effort in Finland,” a spokesperson for the company said.

Out of sight

Not everyone accepts that doing the mining underground is a mitigating factor. There are concerns over the bedrock in the area, according to the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, as it is fractured and groundwater could seep into the mine.

In an October statement, the Licensing Agency found the plan “insufficient to offset all the damage caused by the mining project as required by the Habitats Directive,” despite the company’s plans to restore the mire, which would increase the Natura 2000 site by a third in size. 

On top of that, the Forest Administration found in its own assessment that restoring nearby wetlands would only make up for the damage done to the mire if those habitats end up in a similar or better condition.

“Damage to habitats in excellent condition cannot be offset by areas that remain in poorer condition even after restoration,” it said.

Sisli Piisilä, director for the Lapland district of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, said there’s too much uncertainty over whether the company can actually replace and restore the protected areas the mine would damage. While it might not take so long to restore water levels, protecting the most vulnerable species will be the “hardest” part, she said, with many of the species native to the mire. 

Finland’s environment ministry has now given the Regional Council of Lapland until Jan. 31 next year to submit the additional information, after which it will revert to the Forest Administration and the Licensing Agency to decide whether it’s good enough before sending it back to the Commission for the final say. 

Terämä said that once they deliver the additional information to the Commission, Brussels will take four to six months to reach a final decision. Finland cannot decide until then.