Det finns företag som lever på att spränga, mala ner och sälja ut Gotlands berggrund.
— Ge oss mer av ert land, vrålar företagen. Och svaga makthavare ger vika och faller.
Men några av lagens väktare står upp och de Högsta Domarna tvekar ännu…
För Företaget kan inte lova obrutna kretslopp, friskt vatten, myllrande våtmark och levande skog.
Ännu rasar striden om natur, liv och vatten på norra Gotland. Och marken skälver och vattnet dör om människans girighet får gå före rätt.
Det är gaffelfibbla mot stål, ängshök mot vinstmarginaler och gotlandssnok mot frontlastare. Det är naturens vatten mot pumpar i plast. Det är vårdande framtid mot gammeldags rovdrift.
Och bortom brottshoten ropar, likt en fågel Fenix, naturparken med skogsfruns röst: -Här ligger er framtid, Om vi vill!
Stop limestone quarry to secure fresh water reserve and natural habitat for endangered species.
Why this is important
Nordkalk, a Finnish company, has by Swedish courts been given the rights to mine for limestone in an area bordering to Natura2000 sites (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm) and Gotlands biggest fresh water reserve.
. It is an EUwide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm) . The aim of the network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats.”
The quarry will be situated in the exact path of the water flow to the lake in an area where the whole water system is extremely sensitive. The water system has in court been described as chaotic in the sense that water flow is totally unpredictable as to when and where water will flow in which direction.
For more information www.facebook.com/ojnareskogen and www.Ojnareskogen.se.
The court in Sweden has noted that the suggested control programs to protect the environment are inadequate but has given Nordkalk the right to start their mining anyway.
The Swedish EPA and environmental organizations have several times requested a preliminary ruling being taken from the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 of TFEU, but it has been rejected by the Swedish courts without explanation. So was also the case in the recent ruling of the Court of Appeal from 5 July 2012. Referring to the divergent assessments in previous court rulings the parties claimed that Swedish courts lack a consistent legal practice in implementing Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and thus a guiding opinion would be needed. The court did not comment on this and rejected the request referring to previous court decisions.
Please read the full letter from Member of European Parliament Carl Schlyter to Janez Potočnik Member of the European Commission. http://www.sverigesradio.se/diverse/appdata/isidor/files/94/12508.pdf
Carl Schlyter, MEP
Janez Potočnik, Member of the European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
9 July 2012
Nordkalk's proposed lime extraction next to Natura 2000 sites
Dear Commissioner Potočnik,
I am urgently writing you concerning Nordkalk's proposal to extract lime on the northern parts of Gotland, an exploitation that severely threatens the ecological habitats in the bordering Natura 2000 sites.
Gotland is an island mainly built up by the reefs produced by living corals in a warm sea some 400 million years ago. Small scale lime extraction has occurred for hundreds of years on the island. What is new is the large-scale and quick extraction of this nonrenewable resource.
Nordkalk proposes to make a lime quarry on Bunge Ducker 1:64, almost 4 kilometres long and 25 meter deep in this pristine area. This irreversible process will take 25 years to complete. The activity will take place immediately bordering to three Natura 2000 sites, the designation of one (Ojnaremyr) is still pending due to the fact that the Swedish government never forwarded the proposal to the competent EU authorities. As a matter of fact the quarry itself would have been proposed as a Natura 2000 site had we had the knowledge of its value that we have today.
The effects on the Natura 2000 sites
There are two competent governmental expert authorities involved in evaluating Nordkalk's proposal and its effects: The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Swedish EPA) and The County Administrative Board. They unanimously agree that the proposal is unacceptable as it will cause irreversible damage to existing Natura 2000 sites because:
1. Water is critical to the protected habitats. Today water flows from one Natura 2000 site (Bräntings hajd) over the proposed quarry into another Natura 2000 site (Bäste träsk). This water circulation will change in an unpredictable way, including lowering of the ground water level, threatening the protected habitats. A possible scenario where fossil sea water may enter the circulation would result in an ecological catastrophe since flora and fauna are not adapted to the high salinity in that water. The volume of the fully exploited quarry is several times larger than the water volume of Bäste träsk, the largest lake in Gotland.
2. Nitrogen-rich water from explosives will change the nutrient-poor habitats in the Natura 2000 sites, especially in Ojnaremyr.
3. The planned drinking water reservoir for the municipality Fårösund and Fårö in Bäste träsk, a Natura 2000 site, may not get the amount or the quality of water that is needed.
4. There is another similar lime extracting activity immediately north of this area that at the moment is also applying for large new areas to be exploited that clearly affects the same protected areas and should be evaluated together with the proposal of Nordkalk.
5. A number of protected species will be severely damaged. Notably, Gaffelfibbla,(Pilosela dichotoma) a plant species only occurring in Öland and Gotland and with more than 50% of its world population on the area proposed for mining. Examples of species listed in the Habitats Directive and Bird Directive and occurring here are Apollo (Parnassius apollo) Large Blue (Maculinea arion), Montagu's Harrier (Circus pygargus).
6. Suggested control programs are inadequate.
The legal background
The proposal by Nordkalk was first tried in the District Court of Environment and it decided in its ruling of 19 December 2008 to reject the application. The court's reasons were mainly that the project would cause such damage that it would be contrary to essential conditions in national environmental law. The Courts of Appeal of Environment then reviewed the verdict and decided to agree to the application by Nordkalk. The verdict was appealed to the Supreme Court by 21 parties, among them the national environmental protection agency. The Supreme Court decided on 10 October 2010 not to take up the appeal, which meant that the case was returned to the District Court to define the conditions for the project. However, the Distric Court concluded that it was not possible to do so under the defined circumstances, as this could not, according to the court, ensure that the natural habitats and the wild flora and fauna of the surrounding Natura 2000 sites would not be damaged.
Nordkalk appealed to the Court of Appeal, which last week decided, on 5 July 2012, to authorize Nordkalk to go ahead with their extraction project. This means that Nordkalk is free to immediately start the preparations for the quarry, e.g. deforestation and road building the 9 km from the quarry to the factory area, where the crushed lime stone is loaded on ships. The decision of 5 July 2012 has been appealed to the Supreme Court by the Swedish EPA2.
The Swedish EPA and environmental organizations have several times requested a preliminary ruling being taken from the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 of TFEU, but it has been rejected by the Swedish courts without explanation. So was also the case in the recent ruling of the Court of Appeal from 5 July 2012. Referring to the divergent assessments in previous court rulings the parties claimed that Swedish courts lack a consistent legal practice in implementing Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and thus a guiding opinion would be needed. The court did not comment on this and rejected the request referring to previous court decisions.
It should also be noted that three environmental organisations have issued complaints to the Commission, claiming mismatch between the Swedish implementation of the EU environmental law and the interpretation by the Swedish courts of Swedish environmental law. The Commission has sent two letters to the Swedish Government in the matter3.
The need for action
It is of outmost urgency that preparations for exploitation will not commence before the Court of Justice of the European Union has expressed an opinion regarding the project and the implementation of the relevant EU legislation (Birds, Habitats and Water Framework Directives in particular). Given the refusals to request a preliminary ruling under Article 267, I urge the Commission to immediately pursue infringement proceedings on this issue, and if necessary, request an injunction from the Court of Justice of the European Union.
It would also be necessary to increase the size of the Natura 2000 site "Bräntings hajd" by including Bunge Ducker 1:64 which, according to the Swedish EPA, is even more valuable than the surrounding currently protected areas, and is an essential part of the ecological system linked to the three existing Natura 2000 sites. Given the urgency of this issue, Nordkalk is in fact able to start the irreversible process already today, I trust the Commission to take immediate action in order to safeguard the protected habitats.
Yours sincerely,
Carl Schlyter
MEP, Vice-President of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
1 Opinion to the Court of Appeal, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, p. 5-6, 2012-04-20
3 U 2958/12/ENVI