Abstract
The regulatory framework for mining operations is complex; the licensing process in particular typically involves several laws and a number of permits. This paper assumes that the regulatory framework is strongly influenced by the institutional framework of which it is part, and that it suffers from an institutional path dependence that may decrease the efficiency of the system as well as act barrier to the implementation of necessary environmental requirements. The paper provides: 1) a legal analysis of the regulatory framework governing mining operations in Sweden, Finland and Russia; and 2) a comparative analysis of the scope of the environmental assessment within the licensing process in the examined countries. The result of the analysis of the regulatory frameworks shows great similarity between the Swedish and the Finnish systems, both in terms of the overall structure and the implementation of substantive environmental rules. The Russian system differs in this respect, with more declarative rules and seemingly less substantive assessments. The results also indicate that the regulatory frameworks in all three countries show signs of institutional path dependence, but in very different degrees. Though Russia has indeed implemented major changes in the formal structure, very little has changed in practice. The Swedish regulatory framework for mining shows a deficient systematics and conflicting objectives, despite the implementation of a comprehensive environmental legislation. The recently reformed Finnish system seems to have a more holistic approach.
Highlights
In Sweden, Finland and Russia, the licensing of new mines and the expansion of production in existing mines involve several different laws, ordinances and regulations as well as a number of permits, including environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
Primarily regarding remediation of contaminated soil, the Minerals Act is not considered to include any provisions contrary to the Environmental Code [32] (p. 216), which is explained by the different purposes of the laws: while the Minerals Act aims primarily to regulate the relationship between mining actors and landowners, the provisions in the Environmental Code aim to promote a sustainable development, with environmental governance in the foreground
The main arguments for keeping the assessment for exploration permit and mining concession, including the land use assessment, separated from the overall environmental assessment, are that: 1) if the land use issue is not settled before mining concession is granted, the uncertainty regarding the necessary access to the land would hamper prospecting and investments; 2) the Minerals Act does not include sufficient requirements for environmental consideration to guarantee that the activity is conducted in an environmentally acceptable way
Summary
In Sweden, Finland and Russia, the licensing of new mines and the expansion of production in existing mines involve several different laws, ordinances and regulations as well as a number of permits, including environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Without a clear legal frame, SIA are usually carried out in Finland by environmental consultation firms, universities and research institutions as a part of the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure required before the licensing process and subsequent activity can commence. They are a financial requirement before a decision of investments can be made [13] This article aims to perform a comparative analysis of these frameworks with particular focus on the licensing process, in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses with respect to their capacity to take into consideration social and, in particular, environmental aspects
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
