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.
Този коментар бе премахнат от автора.
ОтговорИзтриванеPotocnik's facebook, My speech to the European Mineral Forum Dinner Debate (at the European Parliament), Brussels 14 April 2010, Monday, April 19, 2010 at 6:02am
ОтговорИзтриванеI know that sometimes nature conservation and the extractive sector do not always see eye to eye'. But I can also see that the UEPG in particular, has been active in working to enhance biodiversity, often in cooperation with local communities or NGOs. This has been especially true with regard to promoting good restoration practices. Of course it is inevitable that there are overlaps between Natura 2000 sites and mining sites. What I want to see is sustainable extraction and the anticipation of negative impacts – this way we can meet broader conservation objectives and make those biodiversity gains. They need not be opposite poles.
We can't maintain outdated positions here…and it is a nonsense that such conflicts exist. Because it is the extractive industry with its experience in integrated planning, management and restoration that can make the difference between biodiversity loss and business-friendly biodiversity protection.