 Hello, my name is Richard Wouters. Welcome to this webinar on the reform of the Finnish mining law. I work for the think tank of the Dutch Green Party, and for the Green European Foundation, I'm doing a project on the need for metals for the energy and digital transitions. This project is carried out in cooperation with several European partners, including VZO from Finland. We have been organizing a whole series of webinars and conferences in different languages. In today's webinar, we'll focus on mining in Finland. The program is as follows. First, you will get an overview of the Green Europeans Foundation's metals project from me. Then, Juho Hekula will present on the mining reform in Finland. He wrote an analysis on it for VZO and for the Green European Foundation. After that, Member of Parliament, Marie Holopainen, will comment on Juho's presentation. He will also talk about the current political situation as regards to mining in Finland from a Green perspective. We are very glad to have Marie here. Then, the organizer of today's webinar, Simo Raitila from VZO, will take questions from the audience and discuss them with the speakers and participants. You can write your questions either next to the Facebook stream or on YouTube and you can do that in English or in Finnish. I will start my presentation now. Or rather, yes, there it is. How can Europe obtain the metals it needs in a responsible way? That is the central question. We all know about the European Green Deal. The energy transition is a priority for the European Union. Solar panels and wind turbines, batteries for energy storage and electric vehicles, they all require metals. In fact, a renewable energy system requires far more metals than a fossil one. So the more energy we harvest from the skies above our heads, the deeper we will have to dig for the metals beneath our feet. The climate emergency leaves us no choice but to make a swift transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies. This translates into a rapidly growing demand of scarce metals. According to the European Commission, the European Union will need up to 60 times more lithium, 15 times more cobalt in 2050 than it consumes today. We will also need more rare earth such as neodymium. The digital transition is a second priority for the European Union. Digitalization also relies on metals. Many digital innovations enhance our quality of life. Teleworking, videoconferencing have proven particularly useful during the coronavirus pandemic. Sensors, data, algorithms allow us to make a more sustainable use of resources, including energy and materials. But in turn, all digital technologies require energy and metals. The energy and material efficiency of devices and networks is constantly improving, but these gains are outpaced by the exponential growth of data, which doubles every two to three years. Therefore, the electricity use of data is projected to increase. We are witnessing a so-called rebound effect. Efficiency gains make the storage and transmission of data cheaper, which enables new data-intensive technologies. 5G, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, connected cars, cryptocurrencies, they all have the potential to trigger a real data explosion, pushing up the demand for renewable energy and metals. The digital and the clean tech sectors are competing for the same metals. For instance, smartphones, laptops, PC account for some 10% of the use of neodymium. Neodymium is also used for electric cars and wind turbines. European demand for neodymium and other rare earths could rise tenfold by 2050, according to the European Commission. The growth of renewable energy and digitalization confronts us with different types of scarcity. Economic scarcity, when supply doesn't keep up with demand, price hikes will occur. Physical scarcity, some metals are dug up at such a rate that the end of mining is in sight. Copper, for instance, might be depleted within a century. And then there is geopolitical scarcity. For most metals, the EU is between 75% and 100% dependent on imports. And some metals are mined in just a few countries. If those countries are badly governed or apply trade restrictions, security of supply might be at risk. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, is the main supplier of cobalt. It is a country with many conflicts and many abuses in the mining sector, including child labor. The EU gets 98% of its rare earths from China, which has already restricted the export of rare earths in the past. So the question is, with the energy transition, is the EU exchanging one unwanted dependency on Moscow for natural gas, for another even riskier dependency on Beijing for metals? The EU has a list of raw materials that are vital for European industry, but whose supply might be jeopardized, and this list gets longer with every update. Today it contains 30 so-called critical raw materials, most of which are metals. One obvious way to become less dependent on metals from faraway countries is to make better use of the metals we already have. The good thing about metals is that they can be recycled over and over again. As such, and in sharp contrast to fossil fuels, they fit well in the climate neutral and circular economy. But we must become much better at recycling. Our most advanced devices, like our smartphones, are the most difficult to recycle. So the EU should oblige producers to design for recycling. It must no longer be possible to put a product on the market without knowing how to recover its materials. Also, all devices that contain metals should have a minimum percentage of recycled metals. However, in the short run, recycling cannot satisfy Europe's hunger for metals. There is simply not enough lithium, cobalt or rare earth circulating in our economy at present to meet the demands of the energy transition and the digital transition. So even as greens, we have to face the difficult issue of mining. Can we source virgin metals in a responsible way? All too often, mining companies cause ecological destruction, violate the rights of workers and local communities, or fuel conflicts. For the Democratic Republic of the Congo, cobalt mining is a curse rather than a blessing. Before the end of the year, hopefully the European Commission will come up with a proposal for value chain due diligence. And this law would oblige all companies in the European markets to remedy abuses in their value chain. A similar obligation already exists for conflict minerals, but this is limited to only four metals. The new law would be more comprehensive and could be an important step towards more responsible mining. When large amounts of the natural resources of a country are removed for export, with little or no processing taking place within its borders, we speak of extractivism. Value chain due diligence alone does not bring an end to extractivism. Moving beyond extractivism requires that developing countries acquire the capacity to transform their raw materials into semi-finished and end products. By building their own industry, they can capture a greater part of the value chain. It is a way out of poverty that many resource rich countries in the global south wish to take, following the example of China. China, however, has not just moved up the value chain. It has established a near monopoly on rare earth. It has done so by manipulating supply and prices, pushing foreign mines out of competition, and this quest for dominance certainly asks for a European response. China is Europe's main supplier of 10 out of 30 critical raw materials. This gives China too much power over us. China's quest for economic dominance is intertwined with its political aspiration to become a leading global power. Its autocratic regime makes China a systemic rival to the EU. A Europe that wants to gain strategic autonomy in order to promote democracy and human rights should reduce its dependence on China. And to diversify the sourcing of scarce metals, the EU needs to strengthen its ties with supplier countries outside China. And this includes assisting those developing countries that wish to add more value to their metal oars. And this can loosen China's grip on supply chains. But value addition in developing countries may eventually mean that they compete with European industries for the same resources. Will they remain willing to share their refined metals with us once they make their own electric vehicles? In other words, can Europe's industry rely on imported metals? Or should we look under our own feet instead? More metal mining within its borders would increase Europe's security of supply. Still, mining comes at a price. Open pit mining in particular affects biodiversity. Toxic mining waste may pose a threat to drinking water resources. And this is a price many Europeans are unwilling to pay. One way to minimize the damage is to first look at the mines we already have. In current mining operations, too many valuable minerals end up as waste. Sweden is giving a good example. It is planning to recover rare earths from the waste of its iron mines. Detailings from closed mines can also be a source of scarce metals. Recovering those leftover metals should go hand in hand with the ecological rehabilitation of old mining sites. And what about new mining projects in Europe? I think they will only get off the ground if we set high standards. And these include gaining and maintaining the support of local communities. And for indigenous communities, the rights to free, prior and informed consent. Question is, when are Finland and Sweden going to ratify the ILO Convention on Indigenous Peoples? Natura 2000, the EU's network of nature protection areas, should be a no-go zone for new mining projects. And of course, mining should be as clean as possible. In the slide, I've listed a few technical innovations that are feasible according to experts. For instance, zero emission machinery. That is in mining companies' own interests. If only because the future EU battery regulation will require battery producers to report on the carbon footprint of their batteries. And of course, mining companies should pay fair compensation for the appropriation of common resources. EU Heikila will tell us more about that. How much mining do we need? No, sorry, nearly finished, not yet. How much mining do we need? Perhaps less than the European Commission predicts if we apply broader circular thinking. The circular economy is not just about recycling. The most effective circular strategies are refuse, rethink, reduce. And this involves questioning our current lifestyles. For instance, should we replace every fossil fuel car with an electric one? Or is it better to share vehicles? We could make do with far fewer cars if we shifted to bikes, public transport and shared e-cars. A rethink of mobility could save a huge amount of scarce metals. If one e-car were enough to replace five fossil fuel cars, the EU would only need half as much lithium and cobalt as is currently projected. However, this would not completely remove the need for virgin metals from mining. The IGs I just shared with you come from a large number of webinars that we have organized. At the moment we are finalizing the text of a small book on metals. Our draft text is already online at metalsforEurope.eu. Feel free to leave your comments on the website. Thank you for listening to me. I look forward to the discussion. But first, I give the floor to Juho Heikila, who will talk on the reform of the Finish Mining Act. Take it away, Juho. Thank you. Firstly, a bit on the need for metals. When we discussed, for example, Congo and the need for cobalt, it used to be said that Finland is currently the largest and almost only producer of cobalt in Europe. The only other producer of cobalt in Europe currently is Poland. But the reserves in Poland are currently not economically viable for large-scale mining operations. But as the topic on hand, I'll be giving you a short overview on the Finish Mining Act and the current revision of it. In May 2018, to be more precise, the Finnish Parliament ratified the CETA Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada. The Finnish Parliament ratified this agreement on the term that there be a revision of the Finish Mining Act because CETA also included legal way for a legal framework for mining companies to possibly sue a state if they see the rights being infringed on by rising taxation or changing environmental legislation. Two years forward into February 2020, a working group was set to draft a new version of the Finish Mining Act. The working group consists of proponents of industry, different conservation groups as well as citizens groups. The working group has been doing its job since February 2020 and the original date for the draft to be ready and presented to the Parliament was supposed to be December 2020. However, there was a delay that pushed back the date until hopefully December of this year and possibly early 2022. And this was in large part due to the inclusion of this system of comparison of interests that maybe would see its way into the new draft for the law. And this comparison of interests was or is supposed to be a comprehensive look at the benefits and disadvantages of different mines and were supposed to make a comprehensive decision on each mine based on that comprehensive look at different interests. Going forward, the current Finish Mining Act is in a way that is a gravity, I would say, because the first big thing is the ownership of all resources. There are three main ways the ownership of all resources can be arranged. The two most common ones are the Consition, Consistent Preciable, so the state owns the all resources and then can give out the rights to utilize those resources as it seems. The second option is to give ownership of the resources to the landowners and the third one, which is in use in Finland, is the claiming principle. So neither the state nor the landowner ultimately owns the resources. They are free to be claimed by any mining company willing to utilize them and obviously such an arrangement is fairly favorable to mining industry as they do not need to negotiate with possibly difficult landowners and touch on. Another principle in the Finish Mining Act is the way that Finish Society benefits from the mining operations that are taking place in Finland. We have chosen an indirect way of benefiting from the operations. What this means is that there's currently no mine attacks in Finland and the main benefits Finish Society gains from these operations are jobs and then a small scale payments to landowners. Third component of interest in the current law is the leeway that it gives in determining public interest. So the law considers broadly different factors as it is now. For example, even if a municipality opposes the opening of a mine in that certain municipality, the decision can be overruled if public interest demands so. But then again, it does not clearly defines what constitutes a significant enough public interest. Now as to the current state of the draft, this is as of the 18th of August. And yeah, I have picked some of the most interesting parts of the proposals. In the draft from this June, there was a new proposition for a new reservation fee of an unknown amount paid by Hexler, so by Landaria, to an undefined party. And the most probably probable interpretation of this is that the draft is going to include a fee paid to the land owner, a one time fee in addition to the current excavation fees, which are 0.15% of the value. The proposals also include better defined deposits for decommissioning costs of the mines, as well as accidents lasting up to a year. The old mining act also included compulsory deposits for decommissioning costs, but the actual costs that were going to be covered with the deposit were rather vaguely sermons. So this is definitely a step in the right direction. For example, this new draft says that the deposit must include for example, for example, the deposit must cover, for example, the removal of machinery, reforestation and so on. Third big theme I see in this proposal is the drive towards more information. The new draft includes a lot more obligations to the mining companies to inform the citizens, the municipalities, as well as the sum of people on the mining processes that are taking place. And it also includes not a comparison of interest, but some conditionality through which municipalities, for example, can have power in determining if a mine is going to be built or not. Interestingly enough, even though the comparison of interest was mentioned as the main reason for the delay of the drafts, it is currently unclear whether it is going to be included in the final draft. This is because there has been a report on the comparison of interest mechanism and the results looking a bit complicated, so we'll have to wait on that a bit more. And as to the legal matters, in the report I wrote, I suggested that because mining operations taking place in, for example, that natural 2000 areas already unlikely, it would not create significant harm to mining companies if we would have tried to ban mining operations in conservation areas. However, this does include a legal problem because you can't really treat different economic activities differently in this case. So instead of banning mining operations in conservation areas, you would have to ban all economic activity in conservation areas, all economic activities that can influence the natural values of the area. However, I'm hopeful that the comparison of interest mechanism, if it is included in the draft, will ultimately produce similar results as in no mining operations in conservation areas. But that prevents to be seen. Another point on which I received feedback was the part about taxation. In the paper, I recommended a royalty-based system, as in Australia, for example. But now we have a bit more recent information on the suitability of different tax forms. A recent study by the VATT Institute for Economic Research, the Finnish Governmental Economic Research Institute, found that taxing profits would be the most economically efficient form of taxation. And royalty-based value of extracted ore is a simple to implement form of taxation, yes, and it also provides a steady and predictable flow of income to the state. However, this royalty-based form of taxation is also more detrimental to economic activity, which would mean less mining in Finland, which is currently not something we would like. The study goes on to propose a combination of these two tax forms, so maybe a spoiled royalty, which would provide predictable and steady income and a profit-based component to lessen the detrimental effects on economic activity. Overall, the new draft of the Finnish Mining Act doesn't touch on the big subjects of the law, such as who owns the resources and who has the power to decide on a mining operation. But I do have to say that these are small steps, but definitely in the right direction in accordance with the wishes of the government. That is all I have to say for now, and I'll give the stage to Mari. Thank you. Yeah, we will hear from Mari now to comment on what we have already heard and to preface the discussions that people have going forward. Thank you. Hello everyone. Thank you for these informative presentations. My name is Mari Holopainen. I'm a Member of Parliament in Finland, and I've been following quite closely the mining legislation and its challenges, and I'm going to comment on the situation that we have here. My understanding of some of the aspects is different from what Juho presented and some thoughts we share. But anyways, I'm going to go to current situation that many of us are, of course, very informed already. We know that over 13% of Finland's surface is being reserved for mining activities, for mineral prospecting, and we see almost weekly some new prospecting. And one of the latest one was in Inaari, at the Sami region. It was covering also parts of Lake Inaari, Inaari järvi, which is a valuable nature area. And our current law allows these prospecting, these type of prospects for usually foreign companies, but any type of companies that are looking for minerals. And these areas are quite large as well, as we know, and these reservations for mineral prospecting can be there as long as for 17 years. So this is already a big threat to many communities and many other economic activities. For instance, for Sami people, of course, the reindeer farming that they have, but also for traveling, for people who have established business for travelers to come and enjoy the nature. So it already has an effect on the economy of the region and the investment ability. If there is a threat of a mining company, naturally there will be less investments for, let's say, for travelers, for any type of other activity that can be harmed by potential mining. And at the moment we have no real mine tax or income for society from the unique non-renewable natural resources. And this is what we're trying to fix now and it has been agreed. We at the pre-in-party are proposing that we should use the taxation based on the use of the land. So this would be a taxation that would have some positive impact for the nature because it would also activate to think how much soil and land will be used for mining. So we're suggesting taxation based on the use of the land and resources taken out. And I think this is one quite promising way to make the taxation also real because what we know from many studies is that if we are taxing profits, it can be also quite easily avoided by many of the companies. Part of that profit taxation can be avoided with the multinational companies at least that are quite able to make the profit seem smaller for the country in question that we are very well aware. So there are many problems with the profit taxation. Yes, and then of course we are aiming to change the law to take into account the environmental issues, the societal issues that people don't really have any rights to say that I'm owning this land and there shouldn't be any mineral prospecting you have no such rights. And it's also quite unclear how the municipalities can even affect although the municipalities of course have a monopoly to make city planning to decide what will be built. But our current law for mining is so strong from the perspective of the companies that it's even unclear. And this mining law was made at the time when the economy was not so strong. So I think some of the thoughts are with the type of different ways of economy and economical success. And we are all very well aware that no country can be successful by relying on its natural resources that will not add most value. So Finland is an educated country with also promising startups, promising research and knowledge and our mining law is not addressing the current situation. However, our current Minister of Economic Affairs has stated that it's one of the best laws, mining laws in the world, which has raised quite a lot of questions and concern among people at the moment. And I think one, some of the underlying issues is that are that we are not, we have not renewed our economic policies in Finland. We're still and some parties are quite into the natural resources thinking like pulp industry and mining that we know that these type of industries, they use a lot of natural resources, but they don't also give a lot of employment. And they don't give a lot of value added compared to what you can produce from the wood compared to pulp industry. So I think one of the big challenges is really change the way we think about the economy and our different businesses and then we have to move to appreciate more knowledge intensive businesses and research based businesses. Because otherwise we will be losing this game between countries. I think no wise country would like to rely on the natural resources based economy because it will never be as lucrative as many of the other industries in terms of what benefit it will add to GDP. Yes. So anyways, now we have to renew this law. It has a lot of support among people. There are many initiatives by citizens to watch changing the current situation. So I think since our democracy is working relatively well, it hasn't worked well with the mining issues so far, but sooner or later the people are so fed up with the current situation so the situation will change and the law will change. And also the parliament has decided that the law has to be renewed in ambitious ways when it comes to many of the issues that we have to renew. So the parliament has stated that we have to give more right to people to decide for local people, people who own land. We have to also protect the environment better and we have to have the taxation. So that's already been agreed. The problem is that at the group that is renewing this law, I think probably it could be called structural corruption. Many of the members of this group are mining companies that are actually quite dependent or some part of the business is quite dependent on what will happen with this law. And yet the aim is to renew this law to be better for environment, to be better for people. And yet in this group there are not so many members from people that are representing the mining activism. There are no people from these types of groups, but the voice of mining industry is quite well represented. And in my opinion, I have background in research. I think what we should do, we should organize the law processes based more on research, based less on direct interests of these type of companies. So I think we have to do changes on how we make the law, how we renew law. It cannot work this way that we have mining companies making these changes. Of course at the end there will be politicians deciding, but still I think this is a huge structural issue here that we have to change. So this at the moment when you go to the website of the Ministry of Economic Affairs you can see a proposal draft for the new mining law. And it's not really basing these goals that the parliament has set for the new law. And there will be a lot to change still, to make the goals real, those goals that are already decided and guided by the parliament, that also are in our governmental program. And yes, I don't know how much time I have probably I have used most of it. I would say that there are really some challenges when we look at the demand of minerals that we heard at the beginning of this session. So I think no one has answers yet, because what we know is that mining and use of land, mining and other uses of land, taking land for different purposes for building, this is the fourth biggest threat for biodiversity already. And mining always has some effect on the environment. For instance in Finland we have lakes, very valuable resources for clean water, for drinking water. And many of these mining areas or these mineral prospecting areas are close to these lakes. So what we know already, we had Talvivaara terra fame case and it ruined lake areas in Finland. And of course this is one threat that is there out there. Yeah, so I think there's a lot to do to change this way we think about use of natural resources. And yet we have to find new ways to produce batteries, to produce electric cars, because we know we have startups, companies that are developing and have developed batteries from salt for instance. Also from wood in Finland, forest company Storajasa has invested in small scale development industry for wood based battery materials and these type of innovations we need. Otherwise we will have very many damaging effects caused by new mining areas around the globe, not only in Finland but in many other countries. So I'm hoping a well educated country would provide some of these new solutions for batteries, for other material needs, use of more sustainable materials. And it's already taking place, there's a company for instance called Broadbit that I mentioned, who has developed salt based batteries and this is material that can be easily found and it's not damaging environment to the extent that we will see now with the raw materials. So I think we have to set some boundaries for the valuable nature and lakes and protect, because otherwise this one generation will use a lot of the resources that are there to be taken only once. And no country, especially no country like Finland can be so stupid, that we would keep these resources away for free like it's happening today. So there's a lot to do with the mining reform that we have at the moment in taking place in Finland and I'm hoping it will make a change. Thank you. Thank you, Marit. We will now go to more free form discussions. There are a few questions that I have prepared and anybody can ask more questions in the comment section either on YouTube or Facebook. Just to start, I would like to ask Juho about the claim by Minister of Economic Affairs, which Mari mentioned. Is the Finnish mining law one of the best in the world? Actually one of the best in the world for the mining companies at the moment, not so much for the people. Would you like to elaborate? Why not or why yes? I say mainly because of the principle on which the ownership of the oil resources is decided, so the claim system as well as the level of taxation, of course taxation in Finland is on quite a high level, but specifically mining taxation is lowest I think in the world. Another thing when it comes to information being available, there is extensive geological information available in Finland for free for the mining companies and created by the Geological Institute. So an estimate that to produce this level of information about our geology would require an input of 1.3 million euros I think. So those all make Finland a pretty lucrative country. Not really a lucrative country, no, because less of our deposits are low in concentration or otherwise hardly hard to utilize in an economically viable way. So if and possibly when, for example, the price of cobbles continues to rise, there will be more mining operations. Okay, and because we have one question from the audience, I would like to ask some details about how the permitting process works. In your analysis you kind of what I would describe as a layperson is kind of the steps from searching to finding to owning to mining, which is more like prospect or in kind of your expert terms prospecting and then reservation then exploration and then actually getting a mining permit. So how does this work and is it relevant to the discussion on the reform? Yes, I do think the draft would complicate the process a bit. For example, it would include a limit on the exploration permits. I think no exploration permits given by the landowner so that the permit would expire after I think 10 years after which it is on the landowners dependent on the landowner. And I wish to continue the permits. And when it comes to prospecting, I think the wording was changed to that the prospecting permit is in effects for a maximum of 12 months instead of I think 12 months was the default before. You had something to add, Marek? Yeah, I think in my opinion there are not really any significant changes proposed at the moment, but it was agreed at the parliament that there will be. But like I mentioned, we have had some significant challenges with this working group. And I think, for instance, the landowners would have to have some kind of rights to influence what will the land be used of. So this is one example and now it is proposed that they could have some say after 10 years of mineral prospecting and this quite a long time. It is not possible to do anything related to the land of any landowner without his or her permission. But for some reason mining and some historical reasons mining has been treated differently and I think all the economic activities should be treated at least from the minimum the same. So this would always overrule travelling or whatever other land use. Yes, I think there was something related to this in your analysis, like even most of the United States had stopped from using some sort of mechanism except for Texas. No, it was on the ownership of the oil resources. So Texas, I think currently has the same system as us, but the claiming system is the same, but the ultimate ownership is with the landowners of the states except Finland. Can you elaborate on our current situation? As in the state doesn't so much solve the resources, solve the right to use the land, but I'm going to give an example on the small ways in which this new draft would add more things to consider in granting these exploration permits, for example. You can see this as complicating the process or you can see this as rectifying something that should have been done a long time ago. For example, the new draft states that when giving out a exploration permit, you now have to list all the actions you're going to take to prevent the exploration from causing significant environmental harm. But I do have to give it to Mario that a lot of the wordings and the drafts made it a sense that leaves the decision making quite open because there's currently no strict set of rules according to which you should make these judgments on which values are more important. This is tourism more important, natural values more important, they are not quantified in this draft. Okay, talking about landowner rights, I would like to ask about comparison of interests, which I've seen discussion that it has not been rectified in the new draft. What would you say kind of, what do we talk about when we talk about comparison of interests, and especially how it relates to or does not relate to the rights of the, as far as I know they only recognize indigenous people in Europe, the Sami people. Yeah, the comparison of interests is one way to consider different interests, but the parliament didn't advise to specifically use that type of approach. The parliament advised that the rights of people and the rights of environment has to be taken into account period, and that can be written to the law. So this will be the limits, this is how you can do mining and this is how you have to take into account the rights of landowners or municipalities or different types of stakeholders. And this was some kind of a miscomprehension from the ministry and the working group that the comparison of interests has to be searched for and I think it's not the real reason that they took one year of extra time to prepare this law. There are some other challenges that are keeping the working group taking it so long and more specifically keeping them from taking into account what has been agreed already, what the government has agreed at the governmental plan and what has been agreed later at the parliament. And I think it has to do with who they decided to prepare the law with. That's at least one aspect that comes to my mind and of course the minds of Finnish people that are quite actively discussing the Mining Act in many of social media forums and writing opinions and also writing to members of parliament and were eager to see the real changes that were promised to be done. And I think it also tells something that the ministry told that because of the conflict of interests study, it will take some more time because the parliament wanted this type of study. And you cannot find any type of advice from the parliament that would be what parliament wanted. So it is mentioned as one option, but what the parliament wanted was to make some real changes. And now they say that they will not have the study of the conflict of interest by the time the new act will be given. So I don't know, it's a bit unclear to say that this was mandatory and now to say that they will not have time to even finish that study. Yeah, unfortunately we are discussing today without a voice from the Sami community, but what rights do you think the Sami people should have contra kind of mining companies and is Finland considering ratifying their ILAO's rights? Where are we going with that? Because as far as I know, it's been a long, long overdue. And if anybody of you wants to kind of discuss possible mechanisms that could help in the legislation to actually kind of achieve the aims of the convention, or kind of like just to try to paraphrase or kind of phrase differently, what should be the goal and what steps can be taken for Sami people to have more rights contra mining companies? I think it comes to the general question, what rights people would have to have in the new mining act. So that will also solve many of the challenges that the Sami community is facing. Of course for the Sami people it considers the specific land, the specific area, but I think many of the challenges are the same. People have to have more rights, the nature has to be considered more, more, more. And the similar challenges are also presented at the Lake Saima area, which is one Lake Saima is the fourth largest lake in Europe. And it has also many mining, prospecting areas and reservations that people are fighting against for years and even municipalities are fighting. So I think it is a challenge of Sami people, the same similar challenges are in Lake Saima. We had a big mineral prospecting area in Lake Päijänne recently, and this is a lake from where about a million people in Finland are having their drinking water from. And so this is one example that you can really, the current mining act is allowing mineral prospecting anywhere except in funeral, in, sorry, how does my funeral areas, how do you say that? Gravy, graveyards. Gravyards are the only areas and areas for our defence that you cannot do mineral prospecting, but basically anywhere else you can. So of course Finland has not a huge surface. So even we have some space, you will always find people, you will always find some other interest as well. We don't have a huge, not populated area that people are not considering or are not worried about. So I think it is not an easy strategy to make a lot of this land for mining. Do you want to comment on this Richard? Yes, on this, yes. Wondering how to strengthen the rights of the Sami people. There is an interesting development when it comes to mining outside the European Union in developing countries where more and more NGOs and multinational mining companies, including from Canada, find agreement on common standards. And the standards I mentioned in my presentation, IRMA, Initiative for Responsible Mining Insurance, are the most progressive standards. As I said, they're supported by more and more mining companies. And interestingly, they contain an obligation for mining companies to gain and maintain the support of local communities, which are impacted by new mining projects. Of course, it would be strange if we set the bar higher for mining operations outside the European Union than we do within the European Union or within Finland. And I think once this idea that you need a measure of support from local communities has been accepted, then, for instance, the step towards ratifying this ILO convention on indigenous and tribal peoples is not that great anymore. Of course, the right to free prior informed consent is a bit stronger than the IRMA standards I mentioned, but the distance is not that great. So I would advise also the Sami people, if they haven't done so already, to look at these IRMA standards and the list of supporters, both from NGOs' side and the corporate side, which is growing. Yes, thank you. There are a few details I would still want to discuss. One is about the details of different ways of taxing the sector. So this is something that Juho has talked about in his presentation and in his analysis, but also something that Mari touched upon and Richard probably has opinions on. So kind of what are the main alternatives of a mining tax? I'm not the person who knows about all of this. All of you three know more. So I would ask if somebody can start with a brief introduction to different forms of ways to tax mining. To put it briefly, the two main options are either taxing a royalty-based system, so taxing the volume of minerals extracted or taxing the value of minerals extracted or alternatively a profits-based form of taxation. And of course, even inside this profit-based form of taxation, you can choose between taxing different definitions of profits and to shortly describe the main benefits of each type. A royalty-based system is simple to implement and it offers a steady and fairly predictable income, but it is detrimental to the economic activity. And on the other hand, a profits-based tax is less detrimental, which means mining operations, but it has the downside of being somewhat unpredictable in how much income it generates and also being at least to some degree avoidable. And to give a country-specific example, in Finland, as I discussed, we have this royalty-based system in which 0.15% of the value of the ore is paid to the landowner. And that's about it. And when I read the ATT paper on different tax forms, the paper informed me that the average royalty-based tax rate is around 5%. Please, Richard. Actually, I really liked the idea of making the tax or part of the tax land-based, as Marie proposed, because it would give a boost, I think, to some of the technological innovations to make mining cleaner that I listed in my presentation. For instance, not leaving the tailings there in big muddy tailing ponds with dams that can break and pollute rivers and lakes, but instead dewatering and drying them so that they become less mobile and take up less space, but also moving as much as possible of the mining and processing underground with new digital technologies that allow companies to do more of the separation of the valuable and the non-valuable minerals under the ground. So we'd only have to take up above-the-ground-dose minerals that you can really market. Several of these innovations would be stimulated, I think, when the mining tax is partly land-based. So it's a very interesting idea that we actually might take up in our publication. I'm also curious to know what the EUO thinks about that. Actually, I have a question about it. You talked about land-based tax, are you talking about land-based use or volume of land mass extracted? I think Mari discussed volume of land mass extracted. Am I correct? Yes, but I think there are models that take into account also how valuable minerals are extracted. It's a problem of the volume-based system is that it treats different wars quite differently. If there's an ore that is low in value and low in concentration, as it often is in Finland, the production of that ore is basically going to shut down while the more valuable ores will survive. So it's going to distort the field a bit. Yes, distorting the field would probably be all right if we only think about locally, if we want to stop mining in Finland. When we have to discuss the issue of whether European countries or high-income rich countries are a sort of a free rider benefiting from mining in other parts of the globe, then it becomes a little bit more difficult, I think. Or what do you all think? In my opinion, the free rider rhetoric is one of the slogans used by mining industries. It will not end mining in Congo if we do some mining in Finland. And I think what these people are not so interested in is really how good mining is in Congo, but they're more interested in lobbying it to open somewhere else as well. And what we can do, how can we help people in Congo is to make legislation like Europe has done, some aspects, some guidelines for responsible mining, what kind of minerals we are willing to buy. If the demand for minerals will continue to rise as it's put, then there will be mining in Congo even though we would use every land of the Sami people in Finland. So I think there's a lot of resources for communication, for lobbying from parts of the companies. But I know that some people have not so much money or resources to use for lobbying the mining act. But these companies do, and they're also buying some nice things to the municipalities that they have mines at, even though they're not currently paying taxes, but they are sponsoring some events also in Lapland and other parts of Finland. Probably it's much worse in Congo or somewhere else and somebody's getting money maybe directly from somewhere. But in any case, the mining and mineral prospecting will not end anywhere in the world where it's lucrative to do mining if the demand for minerals will rise. Yes. We are slowly running out of time. I would like to ask all of you for a few things. If you still have questions to each other, please take your turn and ask some of them. And then after that, I'd say concluding remarks. You hope? I'd like to at least partially answer the question in the comments. There's a lot of different things in it. I was thinking whether to give Charles a chance to ask this because I think there are multiple questions here. Feel free to take it on. I'll try to be brief. So the environmental protections included in the comparison of interest would not actually know how it's going to be done because there hasn't been a concrete proposition yet. If you want to look for an example, you should look at the Finish Water Act, which I'm unfortunately not familiar with, but it does include a comparison of interest. When it comes to the Sami people, the Sami parliament has a right to appeal and exploration permits when the exploration would endanger Sami culture and language in Sami homeland. So it is not really that strong of a right to appeal. And when they don't have a right to appeal, even the nude draft just mostly talks about keeping the Sami people informed, but they don't really have that much power in the decision-making process. And when it comes to land-based tax, I actually think one of the benefits of a volume-based tax has been lower risks for surface water or groundwater because as discussed, it would be incentivized to move as little mass as possible and to be more precise in mining. Thank you. How about Richard and Marie? Shall I go first? I was glad that Marie mentioned the option of substitution of scarce metals by more common abundant materials. I didn't mention it in my presentation, but it is in our publication, especially for stationary batteries. Yes, common sold uses offer big opportunities for batteries that have to move in electric vehicles. For instance, it is a bit more complicated. What you see there is a move by battery in electric vehicle producers towards phosphate. One of the reasons is that they want to avoid cobalts from Congo, and phosphate is presented as the better, more responsible alternative. I would like to warn that phosphate is also an essential nutrient and essential ingredient for agriculture as a fertilizer. I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations and haven't checked by specialists. Half of the electric vehicles that we're going to produce would have phosphate batteries that would take up 5% of the current consumption of phosphate for fertilizers. 5% doesn't seem a lot, but it might impact the price of fertilizers and the price of food worldwide, especially in poorer countries. When talking about substitution, try to see all the risks and realise that when companies or scientists are talking about substitution, often we're substituting one scarce material for another scarce material. As for the upcoming EU batteries regulation, it is very progressive in that it, for instance, demands from battery producers and importers that a certain part of the batteries is from recycled content. So it's really a boost to the circular economy, but it should include phosphate as well, I think, because this is a resource that we really... a finite research that we really should not waste. Do you want to comment, Maria, or should we go to conclusions? I think there are no, like I mentioned, one has the solution, the final solution to these challenges. We will have to search for new answers that the researchers and scientists have to find new ways for more sustainable production, more sustainable materials. And the lawmakers, they have to set the boundaries, they have to protect the environment. Like we had in cars, we limited the emissions, we have to also regulate batteries better, the battery industry, and there has to be a cost for the use of land and also cost for the use of water, clean water. This is how we can also partly focus on the more sustainable production methods. So I think there will be innovation, there will be, there has to be more regulation. And of course, if we can have less demand, there will be less consumption that will help like you mentioned, car doesn't have to be replaced by one car but it can be replaced by half a car or it can be replaced partially by electric bikes that they have a lot smaller batteries and use of minerals. So these type of regulation we should also advance. And I think we have to change how we think. So we're not saving the world by buying a Tesla. We're saving the world if we're not buying a Tesla or any other car. This is the simple fact that we have to face, even though someone might like to use cars and like to build identity around the sustainable driving and image of eco-friendly Tesla or whatever other car owner. This is not the way to reduce consumption or save the world. Yes. If I can just, we will end the discussion quite soon. I will ask one question to which I want quick and brief answers. Maybe you have first and then Richard and then Mari. What was your main takeaway from the discussion today? What was something that you learned or something that you especially enjoyed in the discussion? Something I learned. I found it really interesting that apparent parliamentary support in a stronger environmental legislation doesn't actually translate that well into this draft. I learned a lot about Finnish mining law and the thought came up that if Finland had been conquered by Napoleon it would have a better mining law because then the resources in the ground would belong to us all. This was really informative and it gave me some new ideas for our European textile metals. Thank you. Great to hear. What about you, Mari? Thank you so much. I was aware of Juho's work and Visio's work on mining so I think my key takeaway is where from Richard's presentation and also at the moment how we have to count how much is needed and how much is available and I think we have to make some real calculations also at the EU level and we also have to calculate the impact and the harm to the environment quite specifically because that's what we can do that. We have the capacity and I think we have to be clear and frank and open on the impact of use of rare materials and minerals and also I'm hoping that we will be using the public funding for innovation that is really more sustainable that our current methods are. Thank you. Yes, thank you everybody for this discussion today. Please do note the site that was mentioned before by Richard. MetalsforEurope.eu that's where you can find the main text of the Green Europe Foundation's project on metals for green and digital Europe. Thank you very much.