Luxembourg, 14/10/2004 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday the Environment Council reached a political agreement by qualified majority on the draft direction on damage prevention, health and the environment, and waste from the extractive industries (EUROPE yesterday p 12). The objective is to impose minimum demands on the basis of the polluter pays principle, drawing lessons from accidents that have occurred in Europe. Cyanide poisoning of the Danube following the Baia mare accident (Romania, 2000) is one example. All delegations supported the presidency compromise apart from Austria and Hungary, which abstained, dissatisfied with the "not strict enough" provisions on financial guarantees to be provided by mine operators for funding clearing in the event of damages and site renovation. Pieter Van Geel, present of the Council immediately expressed his satisfaction with the agreement on the "balanced text which protects environmental interests and public health while taking account of economic interest". He also declared to the press that a quarter of the total volume of waste in the Union came from the extractive industries. He explained that this agreement preserved environmental interests and public health while taking into account economic interests. He added that the severity of the provisions was proportional to the level of risk. Speaking on behalf of the Commission, Margot Wallström also expressed her satisfaction of the success, pointing out that one of her first missions as Commissioner for the Environment was to go to the Baia Mare site. She declared that thanks to the agreement gained today, liability would clearly be established for waste management from mines and quarries. She added that the sector was very important but up till now had not been covered by Community legislation.
The approved text stipulates that financial guarantees will be binding, which is the major innovation they all supported but which will be limited to the extraction site and not to adjacent land or operations, which could be affected by pollution This restriction was unacceptable to Hungary, which has been a victim of pollution from Romania. Milklos Peranyi stated that, "the financial guarantee is a problem for the Hungarian people. Limiting the guarantee of compensation to the site by excluding zones outside the site goes against the regulation objective". He also pointed out that land pollution, like air pollution did not stop at borders. The Commission, presidency and most delegations said that the problem raised by Hungary did not obligate financial guarantees, as the directive on environmental liability would apply. This directive does certainly not impose financial guarantees but leaves this question to Member States to decide. Spanish minister Christina Narbona declared that Spain had defended the same arguments as Hungary but finally supported the compromise because, "nothing prevents us from going future than the directive if we so wish". Taking into account the' content of the compromise on the financial guarantee, Austrian wanted waste alone from the extractive industries to be covered by the directive. This was because it was concerned about coherency with the "distingo" established between liability at the company and that applied outside the site. Austrian minister Josef Pröll was convinced that such clarification in the definition of waste would be "useful for investors" but he was not supported in this.
The heart of the directive was the obligation on companies to have a permit for exploitation and the obligation of classifying waste, as well as notification of certain information (quantities of waste produced, possible impact of this waste on the environment, measures to protect the environment and follow-up inspections), which will be compulsory for 90% of waste from the industry - whether its is inert, hazardous, non-inert or non-hazardous. Limited derogations will be possible. For non-inert and non-hazardous waste, tip-washed coal, the text leaves it up to Member States to decide on derogations, which could involve the degree of information and notification necessary and the provision of a financial guarantee. A transition period is planned till 2010 on sites where closures have already been decided (this is the case for numerous sites in new EU Member States).
The draft agreement has to be consolidated before it receives a common position from the Council and which will then be sent onto the Parliament for a second reading.