Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-04-Speech-3-355"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010704.11.3-355"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the background to this report and the Commission communication with which it deals is a number of extremely serious accidents which have happened in the mining industry in recent years. In 1998, a dam collapsed at a mine in Spain, with very serious ecological consequences, and a similar accident occurred in Romania in 2000. Both these accidents had international environmental consequences. In recent years, we have also seen similar, but less extensive, accidents involving collapsing mine dams, e.g. in Northern Sweden and in Wales.
This has led to the EU reviewing its legislation with regard to this type of mining operation. At the same time, we have large amounts of mining waste stored in various places releasing heavy metals and other toxic substances into the environment. The content of this waste and the extent of the problem are also not entirely clear. As such, mining waste is one of our major environmental problems. The safety of mining operations is also a major environmental problem.
In its proposal, the Commission presents its thoughts on possible ways of improving EU legislation in this area. In the main, we have decided, in our report, that things are moving in the right direction. However, we have a number of comments on what we believe the more concrete content should be and on what we would like the Commission to propose. We emphasise that, in the event of an accident, the responsibility should lie exclusively with the company, including responsibility for the environmental consequences, and that the mining industry should be included in the future Directive on environmental liability. We would like more research in this area. At the moment, there is a major lack of research into the management of mining waste. We would, therefore, like the techniques currently found in various countries to be developed. We would also like the EU to review its own financing of various projects in this field.
With regard to the main proposals, in my report we propose that the study now underway should also take in the candidate countries. The study means going through old mining waste and identifying cases of serious environmental problems. We know that the situation may be more serious in many candidate countries than it is in the present Member States.
We also emphasise that we would like a common method to be used so that it will be possible to compare results from different sources. We believe that, in the cases where it is established that there is a major problem, these must also be followed up with actual action plans.
The most important element of the Commission’s proposal is the proposal for a new framework directive on mining waste. I, as rapporteur, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, believe that this is the right approach. A special directive is needed, as neither the Directive on Waste nor the Directive on the landfill of waste is especially applicable to the management of mining waste. We also stress that this directive must deal with both old mining waste and existing production.
This directive should also contain a provision obliging the Member States to have legislation on the restoration of those locations which have been used for mining operations. Such legislation already exists in a number of Member States but not all, particularly if the candidate countries are included. We would like specific provisions on dam safety which directly address these accidents. In addition, we would like a direct ban on the method used in Baia Mare in Romania, where cyanide was used in open dams for metal extraction. This is an extremely dangerous method which risks seriously damaging the surrounding environment if the dam bursts, as was the case in Romania.
A third element of the proposals is that the Seveso II Directive should be reviewed. It is a question of broadening the scope of the directive in order to include requirements for contingency plans and information for mining operations. In this area, there is the one amendment to the report, which comes from the Conservative PPE-DE Group. The amendment proposes that the obligation set out in the Seveso II Directive should be restricted and only cover mining operations concerned with ore processing, i.e. metal extraction. I believe it is too early to set such limitations before the Commission’s proposal has even been tabled. It would be unwise to do this at this point. Instead, options should be kept open for all types of mining operation to be covered by this directive.
There was widespread agreement when we discussed this matter in committee. I would like to thank my fellow Members for their comments and for the support I have received. We have also enjoyed excellent cooperation with the Commission and now look forward quite soon to receiving the first proposals that have been promised, especially the revision of the Seveso II Directive. We hope that the Commission will also listen to us regarding the focus of the forthcoming proposals. Thank you for such excellent cooperation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples