The Nussir Case and the Battle for Legitimacy: Scientific Assessments, Defining Power and Political Contestation

  • Halvor DannevigEmail author
  • Brigt Dale
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)


This chapter investigates the process of opening the Nussir copper mine in Kvalsund, Finnmark County, Northern Norway, and the efforts that have been made to legitimize it locally. Particular attention is paid to the way both scientific and lay knowledge influence political decisions in relation to the recently approved mine, with a tailings depository in a nearby fjord. The aim is to explain why conflicts persist over the project’s knowledge base, despite formal requirements for a comprehensive and participatory assessment process having been followed. Through interviews, document analysis and a review of media coverage, the chapter concludes that local acceptance of the mine is represented by the municipal council approval of the developers’ assessment program (AP), although this acceptance is not shared by all, as controversy around the environmental impacts of the project persists. After the municipality approved the company’s zoning plan (that followed the AP), the decision-making process shifted to the national level, rendering the local dialogue less relevant. Further, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process did not contribute to local legitimacy, as there was little local involvement in its production, while the content of the EIA is virtually inaccessible to local residents due to its sheer size and technical jargon. An EIA process with more local participation and incorporating local knowledge would not have avoided the conflict over the monetary and non-monetary valuation of the Repparfjord area, but it could have resulted in a knowledge base that was less controversial, more legitimate and therefore provided a more solid basis for future operations. However, this would have required local politicians to admit that the decision to open the mine was primarily a matter of politics, and not a technical matter which can be resolved to the satisfaction of all solely through the production of scientific knowledge.


Arctic mining Environmental impact assessment Environmental governance Boundary work Social license to operate 


  1. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 15, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AkvaplanNIVA, & NIVA. (2011). Konsekvenser for det marine miljøet i Repparfjorden ved etablering av sjø- eller landdeponi for gruveavgang fra Nussir og Ulveryggen i Kvalsund kommune, Finnmark. Akvaplan-niva AS Rapport: 5249 – 01. Tromsø: AkvaplanNIVA.Google Scholar
  3. Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 8086–8091. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1231332100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dale, B. (2016). Governing resources, governing mentalities. Petroleum and the Norwegian integrated ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents and Lofoten seas in 2011. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3, 9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2015.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dannevig, H., & Aall, C. (2015). The regional level as boundary organization? An analysis of climate change adaptation governance in Norway. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fauchald, O. K. (2014). Regulating environmental impacts of mining in Norway. Nordic Environmental Law Journal, 53–66.Google Scholar
  8. FOR. (2014). Forskrift om konsekvensutredninger for planer etter pbl. FOR-2014-12-19-1726. Accessed at: (In Norwegian).
  9. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1994). Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13, 1881–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26, 399–408. doi: 10.1177/016224390102600401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hauge, K. H., et al. (2014). Inadequate risk assessments – A study on worst-case scenarios related to petroleum exploitation in the Lofoten area. Marine Policy, 44(0), 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hertin, J., Jordan, A., Turnpenny, J., et al. (2009). Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante policy assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1361519.
  13. Hoppe, R., & Wesselink, A. (2014). Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states. Environmental Science & Policy, 44, 73–85. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order (pp. 12–45). New York: Routhledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koivurova, T., Buanes, A., Riabova, L., et al. (2015). “Social license to operate”: A relevant term in Northern European mining? Polar Geography, 513, 1–34. doi: 10.1080/1088937X.2015.1056859.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (p. 168). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hop: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lund, S. (2015). Gull, gråstein og grums 1 -omstridde gruver (208p). Davvi girji, Karasjok (in Norwegian).Google Scholar
  20. McMahon, G., & Remy, F. (2001). Large mines and the community: socioeconomic and environmental effects in Latin America, Canada and Spain.Google Scholar
  21. Nelleman, C., & Vistnes, I. (eds). (2011). Foreslått utbygging av Nussir gruver i reinbeitedistrikt 22 Fiettar. NORUT rapport 2011:2 NORUT, Alta.Google Scholar
  22. Nenasheva, M., Bickford, S. H., Lesser, P., et al. (2015). Legal tools of public participation in the environmental impact assessment process and their application in the countries of the Barents Euro-Arctic Region. Barents Studies, 1, 13–35.Google Scholar
  23. Ney, S. (2009). Resolving messy policy problems: Handling conflict in environmental, transport, health and ageing policy, science in. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  24. NIVA. (2011). Konsekvenser av sjødeponi i Repparfjorden for anadrom laksefisk fra Repparfjordelva og Kvalsundelva – delutredning i KU program for planlagt gruvedrift i Nussir og Ulveryggen i Kvalsund kommune (In Norwegian). RAPPORT L.NR. 6176-2011, Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning (NIVA), Oslo.Google Scholar
  25. Nygaard, V. (2016). Do indigenous interests have a say in planning of new mining Projects? Experiences from Finnmark, Norway. Journal of Extractive Industries and Society, 3, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paavola, J. (2004). Protected areas governance and justice: Theory and the European Union?s habitats directive. Environmental Sciences, 1, 59–77. doi: 10.1076/evms. Scholar
  27. Petersen, A. C., Cath, A., Hage, M., et al. (2011). Post-normal science in practice at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36, 362–388. doi: 10.1177/0162243910385797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prno, J., & Scott Slocombe, D. (2012). Exploring the origins of “social license to operate” in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resources Policy, 37, 346–357. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saarela, S.-R., & Söderman, T. (2015). The challenge of knowledge exchange in national policy impact assessment – a case of Finnish climate policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 340–348. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steen, M., & Underthun, A. (2011). Upgrading the ‘Petropolis’ of the North? Resource peripheries, global production networks, and local access to the Snøhvit natural gas complex. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65(4), 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SWECO. (2011). ruvedrift: Ulveryggen og Nussir Kvalsund kommune Finnmark Konsekvenser for Landskap Friluftsliv Biologisk mangfold på land og i ferskvann. Rapport 578921 – 1. Trondheim: SWECO.Google Scholar
  32. White, D. D., Wutich, A., Larson, K. L., et al. (2010). Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: Water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Science and Public Policy, 37, 219–232. doi: 10.3152/030234210X497726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Norway Research InstituteBodøNorway
  2. 2.Nordland Research InstituteBodøNorway

Personalised recommendations