16 Management of waste from the extractive
industries
| (24613)
10143/03
COM(03) 319
| Draft Directive on the management of waste from the extractive industries
|
| Legal base | Article 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 31August 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxii (2003-04), para 16 (9 June 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 14 October 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but information on progress requested
|
Background
16.1 Although the Community already has in place measures on waste
management, the Commission has pointed out that there are a number
of exclusions affecting that from mineral extraction and quarrying,
and that certain of the landfill provisions are not readily applicable
to this particular form of waste. Since the waste in question
accounts for about 29% of the total generated in the Community
each year, the Commission put forward in June 2003 this proposal,
which seeks to set minimum requirements under which waste management
plans would address the environmental and human health risks which
may arise from the treatment and disposal of extractive waste,[35]
and to encourage its recovery wherever possible by such means
as recycling and re-use.
16.2 We noted in our Report of 10 July 2003 that
the Government had identified a number of differences between
the main sectors likely to be affected in the UK (metalliferous
mining, china clay and slate extraction, the coal industry, and
the construction aggregates sector), and that, although it believed
that a common set of rules may well be helpful where items are
traded either globally or widely within the Community, it was
concerned that this would not be the case for sectors where there
is an essentially local market. Also, there were dangers that
excessively onerous regulation for sectors traded world-wide might
lead to a closure of operations in Europe. In view of these concerns,
and the fact that the potential costs and benefits had yet to
be quantified, we decided to hold the document under scrutiny
pending further information.
16.3 We subsequently received a supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 20 May 2004, together with a partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment. These confirmed that the main implications
of the proposal as drafted would arise in the areas indicated
above, the costs to business being likely to arise principally
from the one-off need to prepare plans to deal with emergencies
(about £2 million) and from annual costs of around £16
million for the provision of financial guarantees. In addition,
there would be certain administrative costs involved, but we were
told that, since the proposal largely reflects existing practice
within the UK, it would not have a significant impact on the minerals
industry here, which largely produces inert waste.[36]
However, this conclusion appeared to be subject to the proviso
that further clarification was needed on the precise impact of
the proposal on inert wastes, and on the criteria which determine
the circumstances under which the provisions for preventing major
accidents would apply.
16.4 The supplementary Explanatory Memorandum also
drew attention to the amendments adopted by the European Parliament
at its first reading of the proposal on 31 March 2004, a number
of which could affect adversely the balance of the proposal, and
have subsidiarity implications. Concern was also expressed that
the Parliament's amendments would extend the scope of the proposal
beyond waste by seeking to regulate the extraction operation itself,
further shorten the period for transposition into national law,
require an inventory of all closed mining sites, rather than taking
a risk-based approach, and attempt to reproduce provisions already
contained in the Water Framework Directive.
16.5 In our Report of 9 June 2004, we noted that
it now seemed as though the impact of the original Commission
proposal on the UK would be fairly limited, but we said that we
had two areas of concern. First, it was not entirely clear whether
the uncertainties over the impact of the proposal on inert waste
and in relation to activities likely to cause major hazards had
been satisfactorily resolved. Secondly, the supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum did not say whether other Member States shared the
UK's concerns over some of the amendments put forward by the European
Parliament; nor was it clear whether the Commission intended to
adopt any of these in an amended proposal. We therefore said
that we would continue to hold the document under scrutiny, pending
further information on these points.
Minister's letter of 31 August 2004
16.6 We have now received a letter of 31 August from
the Minister for Local and Regional Government, Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Raynsford), providing an update,
in the light of the hope of the Dutch Presidency that political
agreement can be reached at the next meeting of the Environment
Council on 14 October.
16.7 The Minister says that, although the Presidency
has been generally supportive of the proposal, it has demonstrated
similar concerns to those voiced by the UK about the European
Parliament's amendments, and that these have to a considerable
degree been shared by other Member States and the Commission.
More specifically, he indicates:
- that a large number of Member
States are concerned that the Parliament's suggestion to extend
the proposal beyond waste management to the extractive operation
itself would alter its essential nature, and that, since that
concern has been reflected in the Presidency's most recent compromise
text, it seems likely that the proposal will not be amended in
this way;
- that there is also general concern at the Parliament's
attempt to apply additional provisions to non-hazardous inert
waste, unpolluted soil and waste from prospective operations,
and that, although discussion at the Environment Council on 28
June did not provide a clear steer on this point, UK officials
have pressed in the subsequent discussions for provisions which
are appropriate and proportionate;
- that the Commission and Member States are strongly
opposed to the Parliament's wish to include additional prescriptive
text on matters, such as the implementation of financial guarantees,
best left to Member States, and that, subject to a need for some
fine-tuning, the text now on the table provides flexibility on
these issues; and
- that there is strong resistance among all Member
States and the Commission to the Parliament's suggestion that
all closed mining sites should be included in an inventory, and
that there is a shared understanding among delegations that any
such provision should be on a risk-based approach; also, the UK
is working to ensure that the proposed deadlines for implementing
this provision are realistic and integrate effectively with the
Water Framework Directive where there is overlap.
16.8 The Minister also refers to the main outstanding
issue on the original Commission proposal, namely major accident
prevention and information policy, which he suggests has the potential
to hinder the prospects of achieving political agreement next
month. He says that the UK is one of many Member States pressing
for this provision to be focussed on those facilities where there
is a significant risk of the loss of human life, and for this
focus to be supported with clear and risk-based criteria. He
adds that there is general agreement on the need to avoid regulation
with no obvious benefits for the environment or safety, and that,
although there is currently no agreement on an appropriate text,
the latest draft represents a step forward from the original proposal.
16.9 The Minister concludes by saying that, although
the timetable set by the Presidency may prove to be optimistic,
he regards it as important that progress should be made in completing
the parliamentary scrutiny process, and that, although he cannot
provide a definitive response on all our points, he hopes he has
reassured us that our concerns are shared by the Government and
other Member States, and are being addressed in the negotiations
on the proposal. He says that he is optimistic that the UK can
secure a Directive which provides appropriate controls specific
to this kind of waste, and that the Government's overall aim remains
a regulatory framework proportionate to the risks involved and
the costs to industry and public authorities.
Conclusion
16.10 We are grateful to the Minister for this
further information, and, although a number of uncertainties remain
over certain detailed aspects of the proposal, we have noted that
the progress made so far, together with the momentum of the negotiations,
seems likely to lead to an acceptable outcome. In view of this,
and of the timing considerations involved, we are clearing the
proposal, but we would be glad if the Minister could continue
to keep us informed of the progress of discussions within the
Council.
35 The proposal would exclude waste, such as unpolluted
soil, which represents a low environmental risk, whilst only a
limited set of requirements would apply to inert waste. It also
excludes waste from offshore operations, as well as that generated
in the course of mineral extraction or treatment but not resulting
directly from it. Back
36
The main exception to this is the deep-mine coal industry, where
a significant proportion of waste contains relatively high concentrations
of iron sulphide. Back
|
