Грънчар-ски ли се казва или Грънчар-асфалт

Национален парк Пирин - тъжна му майчица с Грънчаров, като директор и Продажни министри на околната среда - тъжна му майчица,
изсекоха гора от ендемичен дървесен вид
- Грънчаров мълча съглашателно,
изсекоха много по-широки полоси за писти от проектните
- Грънчаров мълча притворно,
Причиниха ерозия
- Грънчаров мълча, ама вече, като хотелиер - в добавка на службата му като директор на Парка,
пистите се оказаха полезни за врабчовата кукумявка - ми как ли се не сетиха преди да изсекат целия национален парк за да я спасят от всякъде
сега асфалтираха Бъндеришка поляна
- Грънчаров е съглашателно усмихнато мълчателен.
От другата страна на планината хора в невъзможна обстановка се опитват да спасят рядката порода каракачанска овца
в невъзможните години на развихрила се клептократична липса на държавност
и
Грънчаров им пречи
пречи им да възстановят рядката порода -
та седя
и се чудя
кой
е за бой,
кой за тояга,
кой за затвор

flexible approach to application of the Natura 2000 directive on protected areas

Brussels is also determined to facilitate the exploitation of mineral resources in Europe. In particular, [EU Industry and Entrepreneurship Commissioner and EC Vice-President] Tajani suggests, this means a more flexible approach to application of the Natura 2000 directive on protected areas, a proposal that is bound to upset conservation groups. The third measure will focus on recycling and substitution of the most critical metals. New regulations are under discussion with more funds for research

Bulgarian cyanide cases

Can the existing EU legislation, eg. the Mining Waste Directive, prevent a future cyanide spill?
One of the main arguments pointed from the European Commission and several MEPs during the decision preceding the voting of the Cyanide Ban Resolution is that such a ban is not necessary since the current European legislation (eg. the Mining Waste Directive and EIA Directive) insures the proper assessment of the risks and provision of mitigation measures for protection of the environment.
Unfortunately, the experience from Bulgaria shows that the permitting procedures on investment proposals suffer from a number of shortcomings. (There are many other cases in Romania and Greece, but we have most detaled info from Bulgaria).
In Bulgaria, three investment proposals were granted permits from the Ministry of Environment in 2008-2009 – those of Chelopech Mining, Gorubso-Kurdjali and KCM Plovdiv.

Chelopech Mining case

In the former case the environmental permit for the introduction of cyanide leaching has been canceled on 15th of April 2010 by the final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court with the following arguments:
The information at the EIA report was old (from 2005) and did not properly consider the impact of cyanide leaching installation and the tailings dam on the heavily polluted surroundings (specified as an “environmental hot spot”).
The Ministry of Environment and Waters incorrectly specified that the public hearings should be held only in the two closest villages with a total population of 3000 inhabitants, while the project would affect a much larger territory downstream. Therefore the public hearings on the EIA report excluded most of the potentially affected communities and violated their right to participate in the decision making.
The cyanide leaching technology proposed by the investor cannot be classified as Best Available Technique (BAT). The only cyanide leaching installation for ore with a comparably high Arsenic concentration as in Chelopech has been built as an experimental facility by Phelps Dodge in Arisona, USA, with a capacity significantly smaller than that in Chelopech.

Apart from the Court decision the Cyanide-free Bulgaria Coalition identified other serious gaps as:
the lack of a Transportation plan for the cyanide, which needed to be consulted with communities en route, in order to ensure consent and adequate reactions and measures in cases of accidents;
both the cyanide leaching installation and the tailings dam had to be located very closely to inhabited areas infringing the Bulgarian Regulation № 7 of the Ministry of Health for hygienic zones between industrial facilities and inhabited areas. The statement of agreement from the Ministry of Health was signed by civil servants in clear conflict of interest, since some of them also prepared for the investor a risk assessment study justifying the investment proposal.

Gorubso-Kurdjali Case
The project in Kurdjali has been granted with permit from the Ministry of Environment with similar deficiencies, eg. a) the town of Kurdjali is identified as an “environmental hot spot”and b) distance between the facility and the hygienic zones have been reduced by the responsible institution, and c) the Plan for the Transportation of cyanide is not part of the EIA Report. Additionally:
The company is planning to use their old tailings dam with the argument that cyanide waste from lead production is already managed there. However, presently this tailings dam fails to comply with the requirements of both the EU Mining Waste Directive and the Bulgarian Underground Resources Act.
The cyanide leaching facility was build illegally two years before the permit. In 2009 the Administrative Court issued a decision that the facility should be dismantled. Instead to execute the Court decision, the company has received a permit with listed requirements to be fulfilled during the construction stage for an already constructed facility!

KCM Plovdiv Case

The private company is a leading smelter for non-ferrous metals treatment at the Balkans. In 2008 KCM was granted an EIA permit for a cyanide leaching facility for extraction of gold. A check on 10th May 2010 from the Regional Agency for Construction Control showed that the cyanide facility is already operating at testing regime and industrial adjustments. After receiving the necessary information from the Ministry of Environment and Waters we have established that the facility does not have an IPPC permit, although one of the conditions of the EIA decision was that the operator must submit an application for it. We would like to remind you that according to the EU legislation the IPPC permit is the one which proves that any facility fulfills the environmental standards and obligatory precondition for the construction permits.
The protocol of the single public hearing conducted at Kuklen on 10.07.2008 shows that from 30 people presented 13 are from KCM and only 6 are citizens of Kuklen, there are not presented citizens from Assenovgrad or Plovdiv which suffers from the smelter legacy. We consider this largely below the necessary public consultations standards set at the European legislation and the Policies of the EBRD.
Last but not least, neither of the three proposals was consulted with institutional stakeholders and communities living downstream along the Maritsa (Evros) River in Greece and Turkey, a requirements imposed by the Espoo Convention on EIA in trans-boundary context.
In conclusion, an EU ban on cyanide leaching of gold does not aim stopping of gold mining operations across the European Community. Instead it aims to give incentives to mining companies to investigate and invest into safer and more environmentally friendly technologies, applying the precautionary principle stated at the Art. 174 (2) of the Treaty of the EC and showing in practice social and environmental responsibility.

General ban of cyanide in mining activities is not justified from environmental and health point of views

Answer given by Mr. Potočnik

on behalf of the Commission

(23.6.2010)

The resolution of the Parliament calling for a general ban on the use of cyanide mining technologies in the European Union has received the full attention of the Commission.

After an in depth analysis of the issue, the Commission considers that a general ban of cyanide in mining activities is not justified from environmental and health point of views. Existing legislation notably on the management of extractive waste (Directive 2006/21/EC[1]) includes precise and strict requirements ensuring an appropriate safety level of the mining waste facilities. The limit values for cyanide storage as defined in the Directive are the most stringent possible and implies in practice a destruction step of cyanide used before its storage.

Due to the lack of better (in the sense of causing less impact on the environment) alternative technologies, a general ban on cyanide use would imply the closure of existing mines operating in safe conditions. This would be detrimental to employment without additional environmental and health added value.

The Commission intends to continue to closely follow the possible technological developments in this sector in order to ensure that “best available techniques” are applied in practice as required by the Directive.

In addition, the Commission considers that the priority should be set on ensuring full application of the Directive by the Member States. As guardian of the Treaty, the Commission intends to take all necessary measures within its remit to ensure that the Directive is fully and correctly applied in practice.

Поточник, от "по-точен" ли иде, или "головодник" ще излезе

Европейската комисия отхвърли предложените в цяла Европа забрана за използването цианид в минната дейност. Решението е било приветствано от минно-добивната промишленост.

Декларация от страна Янез Поточник Европейският комисар за околната среда заяви, че след задълбочен анализ, "Комисията счита, че една обща забрана на цианиди в минната дейност не е оправдано от екологична и здравна гледна точка на мнения".

Г-н Поточник добави, че една обща забрана на цианид употреба ще доведе до закриване на съществуващи мини, работещи в условия за сигурност, и ще има пагубен ефект върху заетостта.

Отхвърлянето на забраната е била приветствана от представители на индустрията, включително EMED Минно обществено Ltd, който е участвал в комисията формира да съветва Комисията от Европейската асоциация на минната промишленост.