Critics argue that the gypsum mining project in the southern Harz Mountains, approved until 2090, will irrevocably destroy a biodiversity hotspot and the globally unique gypsum karst landscape in Lower Saxony. In an interview with the portal pugnalom.io, LBEG spokesperson Eike Bruns stated that the loss of a gypsum deposit cannot be adequately compensated, "that goes without saying." However, as long as the deposit is not legally protected, its extraction is not subject to compensation; the extraction process makes sensible use of the soil's raw material function. Compensation is required for the interventions in the natural environment and landscape associated with the mining.
When asked how a three-dimensional gypsum karst system, which has developed over millions of years and includes underground caves, sinkholes, and disappearing streams, could be adequately compensated for through surface maintenance measures or artificial replacement habitats, Bruns first pointed out that the State Authority for Mining, Energy and Geology (LBEG) had not authorized any gypsum mining in the Ührde and Förste area. In the Osterode area, the LBEG is responsible for one company; all other quarries have been authorized by the trade supervisory authority. For special protection of gypsum deposits, it is necessary for the responsible nature conservation authority to designate the deposit as a natural monument, landscape conservation area, or nature reserve by ordinance.
Critics had argued in the interview that officially mandated maintenance measures masked the total destruction of the geological subsurface but could not repair the actual loss of the system. Bruns countered that Section 24 of the Administrative Procedure Act does not contain a general clause in the sense of "state of science and technology"; the authority investigates the facts ex officio and determines the nature and scope of the investigations. When asked about the so-called "gypsum peace," Bruns explained that this term refers to a political agreement in Lower Saxony, concluded in 2021 between the state government and the gypsum industry. The aim was to concentrate mining more on already approved or existing areas and to protect particularly valuable natural and karst areas from new projects, while simultaneously providing planning certainty for local industry. "Gypsum peace" is not a separate legal protection status that would have to be considered in an approval process.
Regarding the question of whether the LBEG (Lower Saxony State Authority for Mining, Energy and Geology) prioritizes mining law over higher-ranking European nature conservation law, Bruns stated that permitting authorities are bound by law; every administrative act is subject to legal review, ultimately by the courts. This also applies to the Habitats Directive, which was transposed into national law within the framework of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. Environmental, soil, nature conservation, immission control, and water law must also be observed in mining permit procedures. The Federal Mining Act was last amended on October 13, 2026, and is therefore not outdated law. Regarding Section 48, Paragraph 2 of the Federal Mining Act, which allows for the subsequent restriction or prohibition of operating plans in cases of overriding public interests, Bruns explained that the public interests for and against a project must be weighed. Article 20a of the Basic Law cannot be invoked in such a balancing of interests; the state implements its objectives through laws that are respected by the executive and the judiciary.
Regarding the ruling of the Higher Administrative Court of Lüneburg of August 18, 2026, concerning the planned gypsum mining near Dassel, Bruns stated that the court had granted leave to appeal. The ruling did not address the permissibility of gypsum mining itself, but rather the question of whether landowners could be expropriated for gypsum mining if their properties fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal Mining Act solely due to the merging of open-pit and underground mining operations. In response to a question about the potential influence of sponsorship and advertising by the gypsum industry on case officers, Bruns explained that these activities were directed at the public, not at the employees of the LBEG (State Authority for Mining, Energy and Geology). He added that the state administration has clear regulations regarding the prevention and combating of corruption, which also apply to the LBEG.
The full interview is available at https://pugnalom.io/interview-mit-lbeg-sprecher-eike-bruns-dass-der-verlust-einer-gipslagerstaette-nicht-gleichwertig-kompensiert-werden-kann-versteht-sich-von-selbst/ . The questions were asked by Marita Vollborn.
