Beetles block mining of Europe’s biggest rare earths deposit

An aerial view shows the space where a rare earth mine could be on in Ulefoss, Norway. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 20 December 2025
Follow

Beetles block mining of Europe’s biggest rare earths deposit

  • These elements, used to make magnets crucial to the auto, electronics and defense industries, have been defined by the EU as critical raw materials

ULEFOSS: As Europe seeks to curb its dependence on China for rare earths, plans to mine the continent’s biggest deposit have hit a roadblock over fears that mining operations could harm endangered beetles, mosses and mushrooms.
A two-hour drive southwest of Oslo, in the former mining community of Ulefoss home to 2,000 people, lies the Fensfeltet treasure: an estimated 8.8 million tons of rare earths.
These elements, used to make magnets crucial to the auto, electronics and defense industries, have been defined by the European Union as critical raw materials.
“You have rare earths in your pocket when you carry a smartphone,” said Tor Espen Simonsen, a local official at Rare Earths Norway, the company that owns the extraction rights.
“You’re driving with rare earths when you’re at the wheel of an electric car, and you need rare earths to make defense materiel like F-35 jets,” he added.
“Today, European industry imports almost all of the rare earths it needs — 98 percent — from one single country: China,” he added.
“We are therefore in a situation where Europe must procure more of these raw materials on its own,” he said.
In its Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) aimed at securing Europe’s supply, the EU has set as an objective that at least 10 percent of its needs should be extracted within the bloc by 2030.
No rare earth deposits are currently being mined in Europe.

- ‘Rush slowly’ -

Due to environmental concerns, Rare Earths Norway has already been forced to push back its schedule. Now it aims to begin mining in the first half of the 2030s.
Its so-called “invisible mine” project is intended to limit the mine’s environmental footprint. It plans to use underground extraction and crushing — as opposed to an open-pit mine — and re-inject a large part of the mining residue.
But the location of the mineral processing park, where ore extracted underground would be handled and pre-processed, has posed a problem.
The company had planned to transport the minerals on an underground conveyor belt emerging above ground behind a hill, in an area out of sight from the town and largely covered by ancient natural forests, rich in biodiversity.
But experts who examined that site found 78 fauna and flora species on Norway’s “red list” — species at risk of extinction to varying degrees. They included saproxylic beetles (which depend on deadwood), wych elms, common ash trees, 40 types of mushrooms, and various mosses.
As a result, the county governor formally opposed the location during a recent consultation process.
Adding to concerns was the fact that disposing of waste rock would take place within a protected water system.
“We need to start mining as quickly as possible so we can bypass polluting value chains originating in China,” said Martin Molvaer, an adviser at Bellona, a Norwegian tech-focused environmental NGO.
“But things should not move so quickly that we destroy a large part of nature in the process: we must therefore rush slowly,” he said.

- ‘Lesser of two evils’ -

Faced with such objections, the municipality has been forced to review the plans and take a closer look at alternate locations for the above-ground part of the mine.
While there is another less environmentally sensitive zone, neither the mining developers nor the local population favor it.
“We accept that we will have to sacrifice a significant part of our nature,” local mayor Linda Thorstensen said.
“It comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils.”
Thorstensen supports the mine project, given the small town has seen jobs and young people move elsewhere for decades. It is “a new adventure,” she said.
“A lot of people live outside the job market, many receive social welfare assistance or disability pensions. So we need jobs and opportunities,” she said.
In the almost-empty streets of Ulefoss, locals were cautiously optimistic.
“We want a dynamic that makes it possible for us to become wealthy, so that the community benefits. We need money and more residents,” Inger Norendal, a 70-year-old retired teacher, told AFP.
“But mining obviously has its downsides too.”


London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe

  • ‘Cumulative disruption’ cited to ban, reroute rallies but power granted by concept withdrawn by Court of Appeal in May
  • Network for Police Monitoring: This demonstrates ‘ongoing crackdown on protest’ that has reached ‘alarming point’

LONDON: London’s Metropolitan Police have used powers that have been withdrawn to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies in the capital, legal experts have said.

The Guardian and Liberty Investigates obtained evidence that police officers had imposed restrictions on at least two protests based on the principle of “cumulative disruption.” But that power was withdrawn by the Court of Appeal in May, according to legal experts.

All references to cumulative disruption have been removed from relevant legislation, yet the Home Office and the Met continue to insist that police officers retain the power to consider the concept when suppressing protests.

On May 7, five days after the powers were withdrawn, the Met banned a Jewish pro-Palestine group from holding its weekly rally in north London, citing the cumulative impact on the neighborhood’s Jewish community.

Last month, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its rally on three days’ notice, highlighting the cumulative impact on businesses during Black Friday weekend.

Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer, said: “There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original (legislation). The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.”

The Met appeared “not to care” if it was acting within the law, the Network for Police Monitoring said, adding that the revelation surrounding “cumulative disruption” demonstrated an “ongoing crackdown on protest” that had reached an “alarming point” by police in London.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans in October to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in toughened form.

But Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer from Leicestershire Police, said: “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. If they are provided with them, they not only use them (but) as in this case, they stretch them.

“They go beyond what was intended. The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”

Cumulative disruption was regularly considered and employed in regulations if protests met the threshold of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community.”

The Court of Appeal withdrew the power following a legal challenge by human rights group Liberty.

Ben Jamal, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s director, was reportedly told by Alison Heydari, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, that her decision on imposing protest regulations “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests.”

She reportedly added that “this is not just about Saturday’s protest but it’s a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community.

“You’ve used this route in November 2024, and you’ve used it a few times before then as well. So, there is an impact.”

The repeated disruption to PSC-hosted marches, the largest pro-Palestine events in London, was a “demobilizer,” Jamal said.

It also caused confusion about march starting points and led to protesters being harassed by police officers who accused them of violating protest conditions, he added.

A Met spokesperson told The Guardian: “The outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the cumulative impact of protest on the life of communities.

“To determine the extent of disruption that may result from a particular protest, it is, of course, important to consider the circumstances in which that protest is to be held, including any existing disruption an affected community is already experiencing.

“We recognise the importance of the right to protest. We also recognise our responsibility to use our powers to ensure that protest does not result in serious disorder or serious disruption. We use those powers lawfully and will continue to do so.”