Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

The increasing demand for Rare Earth Elements (REE) for European Union´s (EU´s) green transition has intensified domestic interest in mining these minerals. However, these projects have raised local and national resistance and environmental concerns. This thesis examines how different stakeholders: authorities, mining company and civil society actors frame the conflict regarding the proposed mine of Norra Kärr and how communication (regarding the mining project) and relationship between the stakeholders interact with these frames, in a natural resource conflict.

The study is situated between environmental communication and conflict studies.
Norra Kärr constitutes a particularly relevant case due to the long period of disputes, legal process and opposition towards the mining project.

The study takes its point of departure from the progress triangle by Daniels and Walker (2001) to understand the importance of relationship dimension in natural resource conflicts. Further, the study draws largely upon framing theory by Schön and Rein (1994) and Kaufman et al. (2013), together with Habermas theory of communicative rationality. The thesis is based on a case study approach with qualitative semi-structed interviews together with document analysis.

The findings show the existence of fundamentally different frames regarding the conflict of Norra Kärr. Five different frames were identified: Mining Company Frame, Opposition Frame 1 and 2, Authority Frame 1 and 2. The Mining Company Frame perceives the project as necessary for the green transition and European resources independence. The environmental footprint is considered minimal. The opposition towards the project is by the Mining Company Frame seen to have decreased in the last years. In contrast Opposition Frame 1 and 2 perceives the project as an unacceptable risk, and the mining company is seen as speculative, and not trustworthy. Opposition is perceived to have increased. The authorities are by the Opposition 1 Frame seen as naive and lacking knowledge. The Authority Frame 1 hold the view that different interests can coexist. The opposition towards the mining project is perceived to be based on fear and misinformation. The Authority Frame 1 largely aligns with the Mining Company´s. Authority frame 2 perceives a risk for impact on agriculture and forest but consider the national interest of mining a priority.

The study further shows that competing frames affected communication and relationships. Different stakeholders held completely different interpretations on what counted as fact, and thereby the was the other actor not seen as trustworthy, which in many cases led to a primarily legal relationship. Rather than leading to reframing, communication and relationship many times reinforced preexisting frames and a persistence of the dispute. However, one potential overarching frame change was discovered, along with one subframe change. But these were the only ones. As Europe and Sweden seek to accelerate mining projects, likely resulting in an increasing number of natural resource disputes, the findings in this study may provide insights for authorities, companies and civil society actors involved in future conflicts.