Brussels, 07/09/2005 (Agence Europe) - In adopting its recommendation at second reading on the future management of waste created by the mining industry within the EU, in Strasbourg on Tuesday, the European Parliament has given its green light to the adoption of a directive which was proposed in 2003, I to give extra muscle to existing legislation (directive 2004/35/EC), allowing lessons to be learnt from a series of accidents including Baia Mare (which led to the pollution of the Danube with cyanide in 2000). Although it took position in favour of stricter legislation than the Council of the EU had called for, the Parliament scaled down the recommendations of its committee on the environment, much to the chagrin of rapporteur Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL, Sweden). The way is now clear for conciliation proceedings between the Parliament and the Council.
The objective of the directive is to minimise the effects on the environment and human health of waste from mining industries and to prevent accidents directly resulting from the prospecting, extraction, handling, storage, recycling and disposal of mining waste via minimum requirements to guarantee improved management, increased site safety and liability on the part of operators for any damage caused to the environment.
The EPP-ED group, with the support of MEPs from other political families, rejected several amendments voted on by the committee on the environment, which would have drastically reduced possible exemptions.
In this way, the Parliament chose to go along with the Council, calling for the category of so-called "non inert, non-dangerous" waste, such as coal, to be exempted from various requirements of the directive. In the same way, the Parliament was happy to go no further than to require the Member States to draw up an inventory of their waste history, but not to oblige them to take any action.
"This is a sign that the Parliament is tending to become more and more conservative when it comes to environmental issues. In other words, the Parliament is turning its attention is increasingly to industrial concerns. This vote is synonymous with stricter standards for the countries of Europe whose legislation is weak", said Jonas Sjöstedt after the vote. Speaking to the press, he added: "I care about the environment, and therefore I'm disappointed, in spite of everything".
The text which was voted on is a long way from the common position of the Council (EUROPE 8930). The main amendments adopted aim to: -extend the sum total of the financial guarantee to the costs for restoring all land suffering damage as a result of waste management installations (the Council had limited the restoration requirements to the site alone); -provide for national inventoriess to be drawn up for closed sites and for the restoration of sites, which often present a high risk to the environment, to be eligible for funding under the Structural Funds and other Community funding mechanisms (this provision applies mainly to the new Member States, whose mining companies have long neglected safety standards); -invite the future Member States to take account of this directive, without waiting for their accession to the Union; -stepping up requirements in terms of the design of waste management installations, in order to prevent water and air pollution and to ensure the long-term geotechnical stability of any barriers or slag heaps above ground; -require a prior assessment of the state of the site which runs the risk of being damaged, in order to allow a minimum criterion to be established, which would apply during the restoration process; -specify the scope of the directive, drawing a clear distinction between damage to human health, damage to the environment and damage to goods; -ensure that the construction of installations fully respects Community legislation on the protection of nature (respect for natural sites protected under the "Habitats" directive); -tighten up the conditions required to allow- a priori illegal- emissions into rivers or seas; -authorise the calcination of chalk (preceded by thermal processing, which the Council had excluded, as per all thermal treatments).
During the debate which preceded the vote, the rapporteur, Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL, Sweden), once again criticised the Counsel for having "placed the bar much too low" and for having provided for too many exemptions. "I do not want there to be too many holes in the net", he warned. The Council did not go far enough on old installations, for sites which have already been closed, the rapporteur added, referring to "time bombs" and calling for each Member State to draw up a complete inventory of all closed sites within three years of the entry into force on the directive. Nature is regularly poisoned by emissions of heavy metals, objected Mr Sjöstedt, who pointed out that the European Union had decided to adopt a specific directive to regulate the management and storage of mining waste further to serious accidents in Spain in 1998 and Romania in 2000, when mining waste containing heavy metals or cyanide was released into the environment.
In addition, such waste is not only dangerous for the environment but also for people, as proven when a slag heap collapsed in Aberfan, Wales, in 1966 (death toll 144) and a dyke gave way in Stava, Italy, in 1984 (268 deaths). Waste from each year of the EU extracting industry is estimated at around 400 million tonnes (29% of total waste products in the Union). Action is needed now, and this directive may set an example for the rest of the world, the rapporteur says.
Commissioner Stavros Dimas recalled that the European Commission had approved, at first reading, 46 Parliament amendments out of 74 but the discussion in Council showed that the proposal was too ambitious for some Member States. German Christian Democrat Christa Klass showed proof of understanding for Member States, saying that one must be able to differentiate between the different kinds of waste, according to the danger they present, and also asking that too great a burden of requirements should not be placed on the smaller firms. James Allistair (NA, UK) also stressed the need to defend the competitiveness of the European industry, saying that the Sjöstedt report goes far too far and is not sufficiently differentiated. British Liberal Democrat Chris Davies, on the other hand, said we should not repeat the “sins of the past”. Peter Olajos (EPP-Ed, Hungary) spoke along the same lines, stressing the particular interest of the proposal of directive for the new Member States. Mr Sjöstedt has made a remarkable effort, and he went to Romania to see the consequences of the 2000 disaster, another Hungarian representative, Socialist Gyula Hegyi, said. Mojca Drcar Murko (ALDE, Slovenia) raised the problem of the cost of upgrading the mining installations, while Urszula Krupa (Independence and Democracy of Poland) stressed the role of the extracting industry in Poland, saying the proposal on the table could cause firms in her country to go bankrupt. Her compatriot, Leopold Jozef Rutowicz (NA) was of the same view. James Nicholson (EPP-ED), who asked account to be taken of the difficulties experienced by small entrepreneurs, said he felt they should not be so “dictatorial” in their directives. French Green member Marie-Anne Isler Béguin hoped, on the other hand, for an ambitious directive, citing several examples of sites abroad where Europeans are present and where mining waste could cause disasters: - the uranium mines of the Niger operated by a French company, the highly controversial project of opening a goldmine in Romania, and the destruction of the coral reef in New Caledonia caused above all by waste from nickel mines.