Policy and Innovation for Raw Materials and Minerals in Europe · Do you want to contribute to the...

Minerals Policy Guidance for Europe

MIN-GUIDE receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 689527

Policy and Innovation for Raw Materials and Minerals in Europe

Challenges, Characteristics and Good Practices

AuthorsAndreas Endl, Sara Louise Gottenhuber, Gerald Berger (Vienna University of Economics and Business), Michael Tost, Peter Moser (Montanuniversität Leoben), Jan Rosenkranz, Johan Frishammar (Luleå University of Technology), Maria Taxiarchou, Eirini Tsertou (National Technical University of Athens), Luis Menezes Pinheiro, Filomena Cardoso Martins, Teresa Fidélis (University of Aveiro), Luis Jordá Bordehore, Manuel Maria Regueiro (IGME Geological Survey of Spain), Darko Vrkljan, Anamarija Grbes, Zlatko Briševac, Mario Klanfar (University of Zagreb), Veronika Cerna, Caroline Cochaux (GOPA Com.), Riikka Aaltonen (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland), Johan Woltjer (University of Westminster)

2.1 Exploration and ExtractionMichael Tost, Peter Moser (Montanuniversität Leoben), Darko Vrkljan, Mario Klanfar (University of Zagreb)

2.2 Deep Sea MiningLuis Menezes Pinheiro, Filomena Cardoso Martins, Teresa Fidélis (University of Aveiro)

2.3 Mineral and Metallurgical processingJan Rosenkranz, Johan Frishammar (Luleå University of Technology), Darko Vrkljan, Anamarija Grbeš (University of Zagreb)

2.4 Waste management and mine closureMaria Taxiarchou, Katerina Adam, Eirini Tsertou (National Technical University of Athens), Darko Vrkljan, Zlatko Briševac (University of Zagreb)

2.5 EU Minerals Data Luis Jordá Bordehore, Manuel Maria Regueiro (IGME Geological Survey of Spain)

2.6 Minerals Policy GovernanceAndreas Endl, Sara Louise Gottenhuber, Gerald Berger (Vienna University of Economics and Business), Johan Woltjer (University of Westminster)

Language proofreading Eric Thomas Mulholland (Vienna University of Economics and Business)

LayoutGOPA Com.

Project coordination and editing provided by Gerald Berger & Andreas EndlInstitute for Managing SustainabilityVienna University of Economics and Business Welthandelsplatz 1, A-1020 Vienna, Austria

Phone: +43-1-31336-0Email: [email protected]

Manuscript completed in November 2018 - © 2018 MIN-GUIDE project

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & DISCLAIMER

This publication is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 689527.

This publication reflects only the author’s view. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in this publication.

This report is based on the MIN-GUIDE deliverable D1.3 EU Minerals Policy Guide. The content of this report is pending approval by the European Commission.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

Policy and Innovation for Raw Materials and Minerals in Europe - Challenges, Characteristics and Good Practices

1

Table of ContentsMIN-GUIDE Project Partners 2

About MIN-GUIDE 3

List of Acronyms 4

1. Introduction 5

1.1 OVERVIEW AND TARGET AUDIENCE 8

1.2 THE MIN-GUIDE ONLINE POLICY GUIDE 9

1.3 THE MIN-GUIDE COMMON APPROACH 11

2. Cornerstones of an Innovation Friendly Policy Framework 13

2.1 EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION 16

2.2 DEEP SEA MINING 20

2.3 MINERAL AND METALLURGICAL PROCESSING 23

2.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINE CLOSURE 27

2.5 EU MINERALS DATA 32

2.6 MINERALS POLICY GOVERNANCE 37

3. Circular Economy 45

References 51


2

MIN-GUIDE Project Partners

Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business (Coordinator)Vienna, Austria

University of WestminsterLondon, United Kingdom

Montanuniversität LeobenLeoben, Austria

Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources EngineeringLuleå, Sweden

National Technical University of AthensAthens, Greece

Instituto Geológico y Minero de EspañaMadrid, Spain

University of AveiroAveiro, Portugal

GOPA Com.Brussels, Belgium

University of Zagreb Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum EngineeringZagreb, Croatia

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of FinlandHelsinki, Finland


3

Are you part of the public administration, business, research, geological survey or civil society organi-sation interested in one or more aspects of the mining value-chain?

Do you want to contribute to the development of a minerals policy framework that promotes innova-tion as well as a secure and sustainable supply of minerals in Europe?

If your answer is “Yes” to these questions, join the MIN-GUIDE project!

MIN-GUIDE is a Horizon 2020 project that aims to establish a coherent and innovation friendly minerals policy framework in Europe by developing a Minerals Policy Guide and engaging diverse stakeholders in the mineral sector and related areas.

About MIN-GUIDE

MIN-GUIDE DOES MIN-GUIDE BRINGS TOGETHER

Minerals Policy GuideProviding comparable information about mineral policies and innovation potential of the 28 Member States and the EU

5 Policy LaboratoriesFostering experience exchange and knowledge co-creation on different aspects across the mining value-chain

3 Annual ConferencesDisseminating the project results and enhancing community building

Policy Makers

BusinessBusiness

Research Civil Society

Geological Surveys

BREF Best Available Techniques Reference

CE Circular Economy

CRIRSCO Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards

CRM Critical Raw Material

EC European Commission

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIP European Innovation Partnership

EoL End-of-Life (product)

ETS Emission Trading System

EU European Union

HPI Horizontal Policy Integration

ISA International Seabed Authority

MIN-GUIDE Minerals Policy Guidance for Europe (EU-funded Horizon 2020 project)

MS Member State

NEC National Emissions Ceiling (directive)

NEEI Non-energy extractive industry

NIMBY Not In My Back Yard

NMS National Minerals Strategy

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

R&D Research and Development

R&D&I Research, Development and Innovation

RMI Raw Materials Initiative

SIP Strategic Implementation Plan

SLO Social Licence to Operate

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

UNFC United Nations Framework Classification for Resources

VPI Vertical Policy Integration

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

WP Work Package


4

1Introduction

List of Acronyms

1Policy and Innovation for Raw Materials and Minerals in Europe - Challenges, Characteristics and Good Practices

Introduction


6


7

The Horizon 2020-funded MIN-GUIDE project (www.min-guide.eu) supports the secure and sustainable supply of minerals in Europe through the development of a major online knowledge repository, outlining guidance and the latest in good practices for minerals policy decision makers.

The project’s key objectives are:

1. to provide guidance for EU and EU Member States’ minerals policy;

2. to facilitate minerals policy decision-making through knowledge co-production for the transferability of best practice minerals policy; and

3. to foster community and network building for the co-management of an innovation-catalysing minerals policy framework.

MIN-GUIDE profiles relevant policy and legisla-tion in Europe, identifying innovation-friendly good practices through quantitative indica-tors, qualitative analysis of country-specific framework conditions, and the compilation of minerals statistics and reporting systems. These insights will form the basis of the project’s key output: an online Minerals Policy Guide (referred to in this document as ‘the Online Guide’).

The project is divided across 8 work packages (WPs) (see Table 1). The content-rich work packages are WPs 2-6: WP2 produced a compre-hensive and well-structured knowledge repo-sitory of the EU level’s and EU Member States’ mineral policies and governance frameworks; WPs 3-5 identified, benchmarked, and elabo-rated on good practices on policy driving inno-vation along the whole mining value chain (permitting, exploration, extraction, cross-border exploitation, processing, waste management, recycling, remediation and mine closure); and WP6 reviewed the mineral data base and recom-mend standardisation and systematic reporting requirements for EU Member States.

1. Introduction

Table 1 - The MIN-GUIDE work packages

Common approach WP1 Minerals policy guide development and conceptual basis

Core content

WP2 Stock-taking of EU and EU MS mineral policy

WP3 Innovative exploration and extraction

WP4 Innovative processing

WP5 Innovative waste management and mine closure

WP6 Raw materials knowledge and information base

Cross-cutting management and

engagement

WP7 Stakeholder management, communication and dissemination

WP8 Project management

http://www.min-guide.eu


8

1.1 OVERVIEW AND TARGET AUDIENCE This MIN-GUIDE report (D1.3) brings together results from work packages 3-5 on innovation-dri-ving factors along the whole mining value chain (i.e. permitting, exploration, extraction, deep sea mining, cross-border exploitation, processing, waste management, recycling, remediation, and mine closure) with important recommendations on policy governance (WP2) and recommended standardisation and systematic reporting requi-rements for EU minerals data (WP6) (read the full reports at www.min-guide.eu).

Chapter 1 contains an overview of the MIN-GUIDE project and the MIN-GUIDE common approach, which provides the conceptual underpinning for identifying good practice areas and innovation types in work packages 2-6. This conceptual approach is also addressed throughout Chapter 2, which, through a value-chain approach, addresses factors driving innovation and sustainable development in the mining sector. Chapter 3 draws relevant parallels between MIN-GUIDE results and the Circular Economy in an effort to identify common areas for action.

This report primarily addresses policymakers who work on the various aspects of minerals production, geological survey representatives (i.e. EU and national-level politicians and public administrators directly responsible for minerals policy design and adoption), and representatives of the minerals industry, including industry asso-ciations and individual companies. Overall, the report aims to provide information and results

from the MIN-GUIDE project for policymakers and- national-level stakeholders, such as labour unions and employee associations, as well as academia, consultancies, policy advisory groups and civil society organisations. These primary target stakeholders of the MIN-GUIDE project were identified in the early stages of the project through a validation exercise and targeted inter-views with prospective users of the MIN-GUIDE Online Guide. This approach enabled a prioritisa-tion of user needs according to three MIN-GUIDE stakeholder tiers:

1. policymakers closely-related to mine-rals production and geological survey representatives (i.e. EU and natio-nal-level public administrators directly responsible for minerals policy design and implementation), and representa-tives of the minerals industry, including industry associations and individual companies,

2. related policymakers, and EU and national level stakeholders often playing a key role in private sector decision- making and, therefore create enabling environments for mining sector; businesses and business associations, labour unions and employee associa-tions, and;

3. diverse group of EU and national level stakeholders, including policy-related knowledge services, i.e. academia, consultancies, policy think tanks, policy advisory groups, etc.

1 Endl, A., (2017) “Addressing “Wicked Problems” through Governance for Sustainable Development – A Comparative Analy-sis of National Mineral Policy Approaches in the European Union”, Sustainability, no.9.


9

1.2 THE MIN-GUIDE ONLINE POLICY GUIDEThe secure and sustainable supply of raw mate-rials is a pressing issue in the European Union due to Europe’s strong import dependency. Several factors, such as commodity market distortions, competing land use types, raw mate-rial demand for development, and rapid diffu-sion of key enabling technologies, might further endanger supply for Europe.1 In an effort to ensure supply, production and efficiency in the raw materials sector, the European Commission launched an integrated strategy i.e. the Raw Materials Initiative (RMI) in 2008. In particular, MIN-GUIDE responds to challenges outlined in the second pillar of the RMI on fostering sustai-nable supply of raw materials from European sources; as the previous lack of comprehensive databases and scattered information on mine-rals- and related policies in the EU often led to non-harmonised terminology, inconsistencies, incomprehensiveness, and difficulties in loca-lising and obtaining relevant up-to-date infor-mation for policy-makers and different user-groups.2 With the intention of bridging this gap, the MIN-GUIDE project created an Online Guide, which provides a user-friendly, comprehensive, up-to-date, and customisable information plat-form containing minerals, and related policies, as well as governance mechanism, good prac-tice examples, innovation cases, and permitting procedures for 28 EU Member States (EU MS).

In order to compile relevant minerals policy frameworks for the 28 EU Member States and the EU, WP2 conducted an extensive stock-taking

of: 1. individual minerals and related poli-cies and legislation and 2. minerals policy governance frameworks. The stock-taking in MIN-GUIDE was the first step towards mapping and profiling the EU’s and EU MS’ minerals policy frameworks, and, therefore, contributing to the European Innovation Partnership’s Strategic Implementation Plan (EIP SIP) target of creating ‘framework conditions for primary raw materials that would provide a stable and competitive supply from EU sources and facilitate its public acceptance’. In this regard, the stock-taking supports the SIP action area n˚II.1 Minerals Policy Framework related to activities that “… develop a comprehensive guide to relevant EU and Member States’ legislation and mineral policy.” The first MIN-GUIDE stock-taking action resulted in the compilation of 207 Mineral Policies, 419 Related Policies (English translations included when avai-lable), Governance Mechanisms for 12 EU MS, and 9 Governance Good Practice Cases. By using the data collected in WP2, the Online Guide’s content management system enabled the creation of indi-vidual Country Profiles displaying national mine-rals- and related policies. The Country Profiles further feature governance good practice cases, innovation cases, governance mechanisms and contact information for National Focal Points.

The Online Guide is constantly updated and has, since its inception, been complemented with an additional 175 Mineral Polices, 556 Related Policies, as well as mining permitting procedures for all Member States.3 Moreover, the Online Guide has been updated with information on minerals policy governance for an additional 8 EU MS and 14 new Innovation Cases on mineral

2 European Commission and Industry Directorate-General for Internal Market Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Raw Materials Scoreboard European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials. (Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2016).

3 This update was primarily an integration of results from the EU publication Legal framework for mineral extraction and permitting procedures for exploration and exploitation in the EU (MINLEX).


10

0 30 60 90 120 150

European Union (EU)

Austria (AT)

Belgium (BE)

Bulgaria (BG)

Croatia (HR)

Cyprus (CY)

Czech Republic (CZ)

Denmark (DK

Estonia (EE)

Finland (FI)

France (FR)

Germany (DE)

Greece (GR)

Hungary (HU)

Ireland (IE)

Italy (IT)

Latvia (LV)

Lithuania (LT)

Luxembourg (LU)

Malta (MT)

Poland (PL)

Portugal (PT)

Romania (RO)

Slovakia (SK)

Slovenia (Sl)

Spain (SP)

Sweden (SE)

The Netherlands (NL)

United Kingdom (UK)

7 8

7 26

7 34

24 10

23 36

18 20

18 46

14 45

16 34

17 70

12 24

11 27

5 48

5 15

5 31

5 13

3 34

45 99

10 16

10 30

10 16

10 11

13 31

15 66

9 21

8 70

31 44

13 13

11 37

Minerals PoliciesRelated Policies

MIN-GUIDE Online Guide

Figure 1 - EU MS and EU Minerals- and Related Policies on the Online Guide

Type of data item Number of items

Industry Innovation Cases 24

Minerals policy governance – good practice cases 9

EU MS with compiled governance mechanisms 21

EU MS represented by National Focal Points 23

EU MS with an overview of permitting procedures 28

EU MS with compiled minerals and related policies and legislation 28

Table 2 - MIN-GUIDE Online Guide: An overview of data items


11

processing and waste management were recently added (see table 2).

Currently, the Online Guide contains a total of 382 mineral- and 975 related policies compiled from 28 EU MS (please see Figure 1 for respec-tive policies for each EU MS). With the support of National Focal Points from respective EU Member States, the Online Guide is constantly validated and updated with new policies and legislations, which ensures its up-to-date status. Through giving National Focal Points and consor-tium members the ability to create new or edit existing content directly on the Online Guide, the knowledge repository is continuously enhanced and validated, giving continuity to the Online Guide past the duration of the project. Over the past year, (May 2017 – May 2018) the Online Guide received close to 30,000 page views with an average session time of 4 minutes. The Online Guide is increasingly becoming recognised as the one-stop-shop for an user-friendly overview of minerals- and related policies in the EU.

1.3 THE MIN-GUIDE COMMON APPROACHA prerequisite for fostering the sustainable and secure minerals supply in Europe is, among other aspects, a policy framework promoting innovative approaches that address challenges in the mining value chain. Challenges in primary mineral production, such as local commu-nity conflicts and public acceptance of mining site operations, or rapidly changing legisla-tive frameworks, are manifold and prevalent

in many EU Member States. Establishing effec-tive, coherent, and innovation friendly mine-rals policy frameworks can guide policymakers and stakeholders on sectoral, cross-sectoral, strategic, and institutional aspects in a given policy field4, such as minerals policy in the EU and its Member States.5 In an effort to identify good practices and innovation-driving policy frameworks, the MIN-GUIDE Common Approach (see D1.1) provided a conceptual underpinning for a robust, coordinated and comprehensive analytical approach across work packages 2-6. This approach contains two integral and project-wide frameworks: the innovation framework, and the framework for good practice.

Overall, the MIN-GUIDE project considers three core perspectives important for the innovation framework: (i) minerals and mining industry, (ii) public policy and governments, and (iii) external. The innovation framework identifies different innovation categories that are of different rele-vance depending on the perspective in the mining sector, i.e. the innovation categories depend on the perspective of the innovating actor in question. The innovation framework differentiates between 5 different types of innovations: (i) product, (ii) process (also includes input innovation), (iii) marketing, (iv) organisational, and (v) system innovations. A key point to consider is that the innovation type may differ according to an orga-nisation’s role in the value chain (i.e. one actor’s product innovation may be another’s process innovation). For example, a technology supplier’s product innovation is, from a mineral processing form’s perspective, a process innovation.

4 Nowlin, Matthew C. (2011) “Theories of the Policy Process: State of the Research and Emerging Trends”, Policy Studies Journal, 39, pp. 41-60; OECD (2012) Policy Framework for Policy Coherence for Development, Paris: OECD

5 Endl, “Addressing ‘Wicked Problems’ through Governance for Sustainable Development—A Comparative Analysis of National Mineral Policy Approaches in the European Union.”;; Endl, A., Berger, G., 2015. A comparative analysis of national raw materials policy approaches with a special focus on REE in Europe. In ERES 2014 - Conference Proceedings, Eds. EURARE, 1-11.

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/The_MIN-GUIDE_common_approach.pdf


12

2Cornerstones of an Innovation

Friendly Policy Framework

The factors contributing to innovation are complex, thus, it can be problematic to isolate, identify or trigger the casual relationships resulting in innovation. Instead, the focus lies on the supportive conditions for innovation, using an understanding of the common drivers and barriers to innovation as a starting point. In the context of minerals and mining, innova-tions include, for example, those supporting the exploration of new deposits, the creation of new markets for existing products, and the improvement of existing production processes (e.g. through automation). Actors’ motives for innovating are a key driving force, supported by the availability and transferability of innovations and developments in other fields, while barriers may include economic (e.g. prohibitive cost), endogenous (e.g. lack of internal capacity) and legal factors (e.g. unsupportive regulations).

Secondly, the good practice framework established a clear and informed approach to what can be considered ‘good practice’ with regard to: 1. mining private sector innovation; and 2. minerals policy and governance. This resulted in a set of proposed good practice indicators. Engaging in a sustainable development approach to encompass each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions, the MIN-GUIDE good practice framework contains criteria for: (i) resource security; (ii) economic sustainability; (iii) environmental sustainability; (iv) social responsibility; and (v) good governance.

Therefore, by establishing a clear framework for innovation and good practice, the MIN-GUIDE common approach enabled the production of streamlined and coherent results on good practice and drivers of innovation throughout the mining value chain. For a full description of innovation types and good practice indicators see deliverable 1.1.

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/The_MIN-GUIDE_common_approach.pdf


2Cornerstones of an Innovation

Friendly Policy Framework


14


15

In an effort to address the challenges of secure and sustainable minerals production, the European Innovation Partnership’s Strategic Implementation Plan (EIP SIP) defines cross value chain innovation and boosting of innovation capacity as key success factors. A modern mine-rals policy framework is an important cornerstone that can facilitate such innovation and entrepre-neurship.6 Hence, MIN-GUIDE addresses aspects related to an effective minerals policy framework, coordination between public policy bodies, and their relation to private sector innovation that foster sustainable minerals production. In so doing, the project provides insights on how to overcome the various technological, organisa-tional, policy, and other challenges for innova-tion faced by private sector actors in various parts of the mining value chain. MIN-GUIDE Work Packages 3-5 have studied the linkages between innovation and minerals policy frameworks in the EU to investigate how different innovations are generated, developed and deployed in different EU Member States throughout the mining value chain (and how these are either facilitated or inhibited by policies and legislation on a national and/or European level).

The MIN-GUIDE results show that regulatory constraints, as well as unclear and inconsistent policy frameworks, can hamper innovation. For example, taxation policies may drive away invest-ments in innovation, or, on the contrary, state

investments in large-scale R&D-programmes in the area of sustainable technologies may boost innovation.7 Moreover, regulatory policy instru-ments (e.g. emission standards) may stifle inno-vation due to higher compliance costs, or can act as a catalyser to find new ways to comply with given standards. Public perception on mineral extraction may also act as a barrier to innovation as the public may have particular opinions about the suitability or usefulness of certain technolo-gies, or innovations. For example, there may be a lack of ‘societal readiness’ or a ‘social licence to operate’ for certain technologies or innovations for certain operations, despite a granted legal permit.8 Thus, a minerals policy framework needs to address various factors impacting sustainable mineral supply, such as multiple stakeholder inte-rests, competing land-use interests (e.g. tourism or conservation versus mining), or institutional complexity (e.g. different policy objectives), as these dynamics often manifest in market failures, land-use conflicts, and/or lack of societal trust and acceptance of the sector. Due to the complexity of sustainable and secure minerals production and the logic of public policy making (i.e. following multiple policy goals), minerals policy necessi-tates to apply a portfolio of different instruments and governance arrangements. Hence, such a mix of policy instruments (e.g. regulatory, strategic, voluntary), may facilitate tackling innovation challenges of the minerals sector whilst ensuring public involvement and acceptance.9,10

2. Cornerstones of an Innovation Friendly Policy Framework

6 (National Minerals Policy Indicators – Framework conditions for the sustainable supply of raw materials in the EU, 2014). 7 Anna Bergek et al., “Analyzing the Functional Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems: A Scheme of Analysis,”

Research Policy 37, no. 3 (April 2008): 407–298 David M. Lam and Colin Mackenzie, “Human and Organizational Factors Affecting Telemedicine Utilization within U.S.

Military Forces in Europe,” Telemedicine and E-Health 11, no. 1 (February 2005): 70–78, 9 See for example Clausen, S., & Mcallister, M. L. (2001). An Integrated Approach to Mineral Policy. Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 227–244;10 Shinya, W. M. (1998). Canada’s new minerals and metals policy. Resources Policy, 24(2), 95–104.


16

The following sub-chapters (2.1-2.6) identify inno-vations and their corresponding facilitating or inhibiting policy or non-policy factors within the mining value chain. These chapters focus on iden-tifying key innovation challenges and industry innovation cases; outlining facilitating and inhi-biting factors encountered in innovation cases; and recommending pathways for EU MS minerals policy frameworks to address these factors. In this regard, the chapters also provide concrete sets of recommendations for future policy.

2.1 EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION

Exploration is the first step in the mining value chain which includes all processes related to finding ores (commercially viable concentrations of minerals) for the purpose of extraction at a later stage. Extraction involves the development, the opening up of an ore deposit for production, and exploitation, the large scale production of ore in a mine.

2.1.1. Value chain specific context and challenges

A review of existing innovation related literature and a survey and interviews with experts was undertaken to identify the key innovation drivers and/ or challenges and outcomes in exploration and extraction, mainly in the European Union context.

Report D3.2 describes many of the drivers and challenges that, directly or indirectly, influence or require innovation. We identified commodity

prices as the most important challenge for expenditure on exploration itself. This is indirectly important for innovation because if overall exploration expenditure is low, so is expenditure (and the need) for innovation. Geological potential and data, with its theoretical and technical aspects, is considered the most relevant direct challenge for innovation. Data availability may be an important exploration challenge and innovative ways of data access are essential. Also suitable mining policy, i.e. policy that enables mining per se, is an important driver with scope for innovation.

For extraction, costs and productivity, orebody geology (incl. remote, lower grade or more complicated orebodies), legislation (e.g. environ-mental) and the health and safety of employees are considered key challenges for innovation in the sense that they either require companies to innovate in order to stay competitive or to fulfil changing societal expectations.

With commodity prices, costs and producti-vity being key challenges, our work confirmed that innovation continues to play a key role for exploration and extraction in order to secure the future and ensure competitiveness of mining in Europe, and that policy plays a role in stimula-ting and enabling innovation.

2.1.2. Innovation types and characteristics

Using a literature review, questionnaires and expert interviews, we found that the vast majority of the exploration innovations11 are process inno-vations as per MIN-GUIDE´s definition of innova-tion (see chapter 1.3). Only one, the “overarching

11 For further details on exploration and extraction innovations see tables 8 and 9 in Deliverable 3.2 [https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/D3.2%20Report%20on%20Innovative%20Exploration%20and%20Extraction.pdf]

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/D3.2%20Report%20on%20Innovative%20Exploration%20and%20Extraction.pdf




17

mining code” (meaning an integrated, modern one-stop-shop concerning the whole mining value chain), can be considered a system innovation and some of the process innovations also include elements of organisational and systemic changes.

Similarly, the vast majority of the extraction inno-vations are process innovations, with some of them including some organisational elements. “Land use planning governance” and “new business models” can be considered system innovations and “better skills base” an organisational innovation.

In order to find out which policies are relevant for innovation overall and specifically for the innovations described above, we used interviews with exploration and mining experts.

Generally, these experts see innovation in explo-ration and extraction mainly driven by business opportunity, e.g. to find new deposits, improve productivity or decrease costs. Public policy is only playing an indirect role - except for areas where innovation can help with meeting legis-lative requirements. This is especially the case for health and safety (e.g. communication and warning systems in underground mines) or environmental issues (e.g. resource efficiency, energy, water, waste management).

Indirectly, RDI related market based policy instruments such as funds or subsidies, tax (incentives) and information based instruments fostering education (increasing knowledge about raw materials) can also influence innovation in this part of the value chain.

For exploration, geological potential and data (an intrinsic company motivation is to find new deposits) were mentioned for most of the

innovations and more than three times as often as the other drivers thus representing the key factor driving innovation.

Productivity improvements, cost reductions (intrinsic company motivations) and health & safety improvements (based on policy) were the drivers mentioned most often as key for innova-tion in extraction.

Drone based magnetic surveying was identified as one key innovation in exploration. It is a new system to perform magnetic surveys with about 10 different sensors integrated into the drone, making this more productive and environmen-tally friendly (no contact with the ground). It is an automated system, with a programmed flight plan, allowing for large areas to be covered in a short period of time (depending on regulation). The key driver for this innovation is costs, as the intention is to reduce drilling needed but also it provides a cost effective way to do mineral exploration in new, unexplored areas. However, policy also plays a big role for the application of this innovation as national aviation policies can be a barrier, e.g. because of restricted areas or «line of sight» requirements.

For extraction, the use of autonomous equipment (e.g. trucks or drills) and operations, and process control & (big) data management were mentioned as the key innovations. Productivity improvements and cost reduction are considered the key drivers for these innovations with the following policies playing a secondary role: National research poli-cies and grants, EU and national environmental policies, EU and national Health & Safety poli-cies and national tax policies (see box 1 for an overview of policy and non policy factors driving innovation).


18

2.1.3. Recommendations on future policy

As outlined above, innovation in exploration and extraction is mainly driven by business opportu-nity, e.g. to find new deposits, improve produc-tivity or decrease costs. Public policy is playing an indirect, secondary role, mainly in the case of societal expectations and/or legal compliance, i.e. for health and safety or the environment.

Policy can indirectly - to a certain extent - support or hinder business opportunity driven innovations i.e. raw materials related EU and national policies and strategies, RDI related poli-cies, tax (incentives) and education policies.

Based on the results in this project and as described in report D3.4 in more detail, we

make the following policy recommendations. They should be transferable and, thus, could be adopted in all EU-MS in order to further enhance the framework conditions and uptake of innova-tion for exploration and extraction in Europe.

Raw materials related EU and national policies and strategies, and other policy areas

Develop a strategy for the management of solid non-energetic raw materials in every EU MS

The strategies that have a long-term planning horizon for public sector actions can help industry anticipate developments in countries and better adopt for the future (i.e. in innovation activities). Currently, just 10 EU MS have adopted a Mineral Strategy.

Innovation Policy factors Non policy factors

Drone based magnetic surveying

National aviation policies can be a barrier, e.g. because of restricted areas or "line of sight" requirements

Costs: the intention is to reduce drilling needed but also it provides a cost effective way to do mineral exploration in new, unexplored areas

Autonomous equipment (e.g. trucks or drills) and operations

National research policies and grants, EU and national environmental policies, EU and national Health & Safety policies and national tax policies

Productivity improvements and cost reduction

(Big) data management

National research policies and grants, EU and national environmental policies, EU and national Health & Safety policies and national tax policies

Productivity improvements and cost reduction

Box 1 - Innovation case examples and respective policy and non policy factors

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/attachment_0.pdf


19

environmental performance, which will require further innovations and also improved transparency and engagement with the public. Innovations in social engagement may be required for future mine developments. The public is quite unaware of the mining industry’s importance and education as well as actions to improve the knowledge base and level of trust of society in mining are needed.

RDI policies and tax incentives

Research activity/financing Mechanisms in national mineral policies

and legislation for fostering RDI activity and financing of research should be developed. Tax incentives for RDI programmes for innovations in exploration and extraction should be adopted in national mineral legislation. Collaboration between government institutions, research companies and the mining industry in (international) research projects should be encouraged by national mineral policy similar to and aligned with the EU H2020 VERAM project’s vision and roadmap.

Resource characterisation Better qualitative and quantitative resource

characterisation is needed. Harmonised guidelines at EU level for executing exploration works and for reporting of exploration results should be established.

Provide accessibility and safe supply of raw materials

The national mining regulations/governance (and other regulations affecting mining) must be innovated to make better access to mineral deposits possible. The raw material resources should be protected by mining and land use planning legislation (from other land uses).

Foster and simplify permitting procedures for exploration and extraction of raw materials

The establishment of single mining authorities responsible for mining governance and permitting procedures (one stop shop) is recommended.

Follow and shape policies in other areas Mining decision makers need to be aware of

the innovations taking place in exploration and extraction and their links to various other public (i.e. non-mining) policy sectors and need to play an active role in shaping them in such a way that they consider relevant mining aspects (see chapter 2.6). Examples of such policies currently being shaped and having an impact on innovation in exploration and extraction are aviation policies regulating the use of drones and policies regulating data transparency, privacy and security, education and labour policies potentially impacting automation.

Societal issues such as health and safety or the environment and education

Improve the social acceptance and the public perception of mining

The mining governance authorities and mining companies must continue to improve mining`s health and safety and


20

2.2 DEEP SEA MINING

Deep sea mining is still at an early stage of development. Presently, only one successful deep sea ore extraction test was carried out in offshore Japan in September 2017. Offshore mining exploration and extraction technologies and methods already exist, but need improve-ment both in terms of cost-efficiency and envi-ronmental impacts minimisation and mitigation. Environmental challenges are significant and not easily quantified. Direct impacts on deep sea ecosystems and the effect of contamination plumes need to be addressed, and specific regu-lating policies and legislation at national and EU level need to be developed.


Key challenges in deep sea exploration and extraction are identified in Deliverable D3.3, “Innovative Legislation and Policies in sub-surface and deep sea mining”, based on a literature review, information provided by project partners, and contributions by invited experts, in particular during a session devoted to deep sea mining in Policy Laboratory 2, “Innovations and supporting policies for minerals exploration and extraction”.

General challenges include:

a. innovative and cost-efficient exploration and extraction methods, capable of detec-ting and mining ore bodies at considerable ocean depths and below the sea bottom, and that can cope with the extreme condi-tions of deep sea extraction;

b. exploration and extraction technology and methods capable of minimising and mitigating environmental impacts;

c. real-time cost-effective technology for efficient monitoring and deep sea habitat mapping prior to, and during, extraction operations;

Additional challenges include, amongst others, the huge lack of knowledge of the deep sea envi-ronment and deep sea habitats and ecosystems, the lack of baseline references prior to exploita-tion, the need to define no-take zones in the vici-nity of mining areas to preserve representative ecosystems and capture the local and regional heterogeneity/diversity, dealing with equipment corrosion and operation at high pressures, and addressing social concerns.

From the industry side, the main driver for process innovation is essentially economic, i.e. to be able to profitably mine potentially large, high-grade ore bodies from the deep sea, while, at the same time, minimising impacts, in order to respond to environmental policies, legisla-tion and social concerns. For this, improved and innovative detection and extraction technology is needed. Another potential major driver for deep sea mining is to respond to the European concern of being able to ensure a secure and long-term access to critical raw materials with which to sustain its economy.


At the present stage of deep sea mining, both process and system innovation are particularly critical. Process innovation is prevalent, since this is an emerging new field, and includes the development of: highly efficient remote sensing detection techniques to find new deposits in deep water and characterise potential asso-ciated ecosystems; reliable low cost methodo-logies to assess their economic potential; new automated extraction technologies to operate

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/minguide_d3_3_v2_ua_28_07_17_final_v1.1_0.pdf


21

in difficult conditions and remote environments; continuous integrated monitoring of operations and big data handling; new technologies and methods to mitigate environmental impacts associated with the extraction and thereby abiding to international legislation and poli-cies; and new technologies/methods to improve productivity and decrease exploitation costs. System Innovation, as concerns the develop-ment of innovative legislation and policies, in particular, is currently one of the main concerns for deep sea mining in order to address the major challenges of associated environmental impacts minimisation and mitigation. Given the lack of specific legislation for EIA of deep sea mining activities (see Deliverable D3.3), there is the need to develop strong and coherent EIA procedures and innovative coherent and problem-oriented policies and legislation frameworks, at national, regional and international level, based on the best available science, to deal with uncertainties associated with deep sea mining environmental impacts and concerns. Also, there is a need for a Common European Legislative and Regulatory framework, allowing the adoption of common standards and harmonised EIA procedures.

Innovation in deep sea mining, as stated above, is primarily driven by non-policy factors, in particular economic and technological, so as to respond to the major challenges involved. Examples of innovations include, amongst others: developing autonomous extraction machinery capable of operating for long periods with minimal maintenance in the deep sea; devising riser systems and highly efficient pumps capable of bringing the ore to the surface support vessel; and building surface vessels capable of preliminary processing of the ores. However, public policy and legislation also play a major role as innovation drivers, since the extraction procedures have to comply with environmental

regulations and standards at national and international level. This requires, amongst others, the development of technology capable of minimising the effects of sediment plume generation and dispersion, and monitoring technology to assess the impacts on deep sea ecosystems. Policy can also drive innovation through supporting initiatives and public funding instruments that can be coupled with tax incentives for best exploration/exploitation practices.

Amongst the policy factors driving innovation, as stated above, the pressure from environmental protection policies and legislation is crucial. There is a need to develop innovative solutions that can monitor in real time and minimise/mitigate exploration/extraction impacts to meet legislative requirements. This requires efficient and cost-effective techniques to monitor and model plume dispersal scenarios, and create maps of areas likely to be impacted. On the other hand, supporting initiatives, such as the European Raw Materials Initiative and actions, the European Innovation Partnership Raw Materials, the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP), and the public funding instruments (e.g. the EU research program Horizon 2020), coupled with tax incen-tives for best exploration/exploitation practices, are also important innovation drivers.

Identified key policy factors include: (1) Clear legislation and policies based on the best scientific knowledge; (2) Policy and legislation stability/predictability; (3) Health and safety protection regulations; (4) Supporting initiatives and funding, coupled with tax incentives. Key indirect policy and other factors include: (1) Economics; (2) environmental working conditions; (3) operations risk assessment and mitigation; and (4) response to opposition from societal concerns.

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/minguide_d3_3_v2_ua_28_07_17_final_v1.1_0.pdf


22


As referenced above, innovation in deep sea mining exploration and exploitation will be mainly driven by economic factors and business opportunities in the foreseeable context of critical raw materials scarcity and/or strategic demand. However, as mentioned above, public policies and legislation also strongly drive inno-vation, in particular in an emerging sector, such as deep sea mining, since the technology and extraction methods will have to abide by these constraints/opportunities regarding environ-mental issues, in particular.

In line with the global concern on the oceans’ health expressed by the Sustainable Development Goals (in particular SDG 14) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, it is fundamental to enhance the role of public poli-cies and legislation frameworks on the innova-tion process, in particular as concerns environ-mental protection, health and safety. Given the present lack of knowledge of the deep sea, the ecosystems present in areas prone to exploi-tation, and the impacts of deep sea mining, a precautionary approach and adaptive mana-gement are crucial. There is a need to preserve representative ecosystems and capture the local and regional heterogeneity/diversity in the vicinity of mining areas, in a close cooperation between governments and industry that is based on the best available scientific knowledge. In January 2018, the European Parliament passed a Resolution (P8_TA(2018)0004) expressing the need for a coherent regulatory framework for the exploration and exploitation of deep sea minerals, grounded in the precautionary principle. This Resolution urges EU Member States to support an international moratorium on commercial deep-sea mining exploitation licenses until the effects of deep sea mining on

the marine environment, biodiversity and human activities at sea have been properly assessed and potential risks understood.

There is, therefore, a clear need for policy and legislation coherency at EU level, with the adop-tion of common standards and harmonised EIA procedures to guarantee a responsible exploita-tion of the mineral resources from the deep sea. This common EU legislation needs to be consistent with the current legislation for deep sea mining that is being developed at the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which is responsible for deep sea exploitation of mineral resources in the area beyond national jurisdictions (known as “the Area”) and also consistent with the EU interna-tional commitments concerning the oceans, the environment, and climate change (e.g. the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, the 2030 Agenda, and the Paris Agreement).

Proposed recommendations on future policy and legislation concerning deep sea mining:

Development of a Common EU Legislative and Regulatory framework for deep sea minerals exploration and exploitation, allowing the adoption of common standards and harmonised EIA procedures;

Integration of the Mining Code and the ISA Regulations principles, namely the precautionary principle, in the European Union Member States’ laws and regulations directly applicable to deep sea mining, concerning the areas under national jurisdiction (Extended Continental Shelves);

Development and enforcement of standards, as high or higher than those set by ISA for the area beyond national jurisdictions (the Area), in European and national legislation


23

concerning deep sea exploration and exploitation;

Revisiting the Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and the Council, establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, in order to provide a specific provision regarding EIA for activities conducted in the maritime area, including the continental shelf of the Member States and thus aiming at harmonised exploration and exploitation of deep sea mining activities.

2.3 MINERAL AND METALLURGICAL PROCESSINGMineral and metallurgical processing are the steps that follow the mining of metal ores. Before extracting metals through pyrometallurgical and/or hydrometallurgical treatment, beneficia-tion processes are required that remove parts of the gangue minerals and enrich the ore in terms of the metal-bearing minerals. In the case of industrial minerals, beneficiation processes are used for removing gangue minerals and impu-rities and for adjusting the product properties.


Key challenges for mineral and metallur-gical processing and drivers for innovation are described in the two deliverables D4.1, “Report on the Policy and Legislation Framework Conditions for Innovation in Mineral and Metallurgical Processing”, and D4.2, “Report on Innovation Promotion and Inhibiting Factors and Examples of Best Practices”. The compilation has been based on a literature survey, interviews, and expert consultation, including the results from the MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 3.

The main identified challenges comprise

a. improving the overall resource efficiency of processing, i.e. enhanced recovery of valuable minerals and metals with reduced energy and water consumption, and

b. minimisation of emissions and residues.

Additional challenges for competitive produc-tion arise from (i) the increasing exploitation of deposits with lower grade; (ii) increasingly fine-grained ores; and (iii) a more complex mineralogy. What is more, (iv) combined proces-sing of primary and secondary resources call for adjusted metallurgical processing routes, which is often triggered by adherence to circular economy principles. In addition, (v) complex and time-consuming permitting procedures make it difficult to implement novel processing solutions.

An important driver for innovation in mineral and metallurgical processing is the permanent need for reducing production costs and increa-sing productivity. This refers to costs for produc-tion, energy and related greenhouse mitigation (in particular related to commination and smelt processes). In addition to that, environmental issues, such as pollutant emissions or processing rejects, as well as the social licence to operate, are important drivers. In this regard, policies and legislation are integral factors of influence.


As an efficient production process is paramount to keep production costs low, process innovation being the most important type. Process innovation is typically geared towards decreasing the direct costs of production, or increasing volume outputs, or both. Major process innovation typically occurs when new plants are built, but at least as important

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/D4.1%20Report%20on%20the%20policy%20framework%20for%20processing.pdf




https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/d4.2_report_on_innovation_promotion_and_inhibiting_factors_and_examples_.pdf




24

is the subsequent and more continuous process innovation after a plant is built (i.e. when the plant is subject to additional investments and/or restructuring). In addition, product innovation also plays a role, since the industry needs to develop new products and services in order to remain competitive. However, the distinction between the two types is not always clear: What a mining company may think of as “process innovation” is often “product innovation” to an equipment manufacturer. Finally, organisational innovation is important, especially in workplace organisation and external relations. In particular, innovation is often a result of collaborative projects among process companies, equipment manufacturers and customers (see Min-Guide deliverable D 4.1).

To delineate which drivers are most relevant for innovation in mineral and metallurgical processing, interviews with experts, specialists, and policymakers was conducted along with a literature survey. Overall, the results show that both, policy-related and non-policy factors influence innovation.

Innovation in mineral and metallurgical processing is primarily driven by a need for productivity growth, cost savings, and by competition. In addition, the trend towards lower ore grades and more complicated mineralogy drives innovation. The primary drivers of innovation are, thus, non-policy factors. However, public policy plays an important (but secondary) role. Enhanced requirements on energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gases, as well as changes in the definition of certain processing wastes, trigger innovation in underlying process technologies. Many countries have also implemented policies, such as mineral strategies, often supported by direct R&D subsidiaries and research programs, which boost innovation.

Overall, a combination of policy and non-policy factors contributed to innovation in the investi-gated MIN-GUIDE innovation cases on mineral and metallurgical processing (for a full list of innova-tion cases and their links to policy and non-policy factors, see Min-Guide deliverable D 4.2). Please find below some examples that illustrate this.

An illustrative example was the development of the MIDREX RHF (“nugget”) process, a process innovation developed by Midrex Technologies Inc., which employs a direct reduction concept in combination with rotary hearth furnace to produce products at lower temperatures. The process is more efficient and saves costs by saving fuel, but by being more energy efficient it also results in a process that is more environ-mentally friendly than conventional blast furnace iron making. The drivers for innovation were, thus, the need for reducing costs and for minimising fossil fuel carbon emissions for iron ore reduc-tion. Investments in technologies, like RHF, align with the European Commission’s policy commit-ments to reduce CO2 emissions, but other policies directly linked to the case were not found. This underscores the fact that policies often play a secondary and indirect role in driving innovation in mineral and metallurgical processing.

A second example for process innovation has been the development of the E-Kaldo process at Boliden’s smelter in Rönnskär, which was implemented as a special process step for smel-ting waste from electronic and electrical waste (WEEE). It uses an adapted Kaldo furnace and produces black copper and a slag, which will be further processed in existing process steps for treating ore-based raw materials. This means the E-Kaldo plant does not produce a final product, but rather intermediate products for downstream processing, with the advantage of significantly increasing the WEEE capacity (smelter capacity




25

for recycling of electronic scrap increased from 45,000 to 120,000 tonnes/year). The plastics contained in the WEEE contribute to the thermal energy needed for electricity provision or district heating. It also contributes to responsible resourcing within the EU instead of illegal trade with EoL products and aligns with the European Waste Framework Directive and WEEE Directive.

An example of a combined product and process innovation is the case of high pressure grin-ding rolls (HPGR), a machine for energy-efficient comminution that fills the gap between crushing and grinding. As the HPGR produces more fines compared to conventional crushing, their utilisa-tion (in size ranges between crushing and grin-ding) requires structural changes in the process flowsheet (process innovation) with the potential for significant energy savings (product innova-tion) The innovation case is, therefore, linked to European climate policies, the Emissions Trading System Directive, energy taxation, etc. Being a dry process, the EU Water Directive and Water recir-culation directives (in later processing) are also indirect factors.

By contrast, a case with a more direct link to policy is sensor-based sorting (SBS), which is

a replication of human hand-picking process by automatisation of detection, classification and ejection of particles. This case was driven by a demand for automated picking and for dry processing, but also for reducing throughput in downstream units (in other words, to cut costs and improve material flows). However, in addi-tion to company-specific motives, there was a direct link to the EU strategic implementation plan on raw materials and the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. In addition, the Waste Framework Directive and the WEEE Directive, as well as legislation referring to water utilisation and mine waste played a role.

A final example is the reduction of NOx in iron ore pelletizing plants. This case is interesting, as it centres on adapting technologies from another domain to make it work in pelletizing, which is a radical move. Key drivers were creating a plat-form of actors, i.e. suppliers, customers and equipment suppliers, along with a solid business case to drive down costs and emissions. However, it was equally important to comply with national emission ceiling directive (NEC) and national and EU-level policies for limiting NOx emissions (see box 2 for a summary of policy and non policy factors driving innovation).


MIDREX RHF (“nugget”) process

European Commission commitments to reducing CO2 emissions (but no other direct policies)

Costs: reduced energy costs, reduced capital costs, higher flexibility

Sensor-based sorting

EU strategic implementation plan on raw materials, EU action plan for the circular economy, Waste framework directive, WEEE directive, Legislation referring to water utilisation and mine waste

Productivity improvements, cost reductions, improved materials flow

Box 2 - Short summary of the policy and non-policy factors that had an impact on the innovation cases


26

Based on the results that were outlined in various MIN-GUIDE reports (i.e. D 4.1, D 4.2 and D 4.3), the following recommendations can be drawn: First, new types of legislation have the potential of having both favourable and unfa-vourable consequences to mineral and metal-lurgical processing. Imposing new policies might drive companies towards process improvements and more environmentally sound operations, but may also stifle development and lead to less innovation as compliance costs increase. The impact on innovation may be net positive, but policymakers should approach such new legis-lation carefully. In particular, the sheer quantity of policy initiatives leads to more complicated and time-consuming permitting procedures, and in some cases unacceptably high economic commitments by industry.


As outlined, innovation in mineral and metal-lurgical processing is mainly driven by the need for cost reduction and productivity improve-ments, where the predominant type is process innovation. Policy and legislation, therefore, play an indirect or secondary role, although still an important one. Policy can both hinder and drive innovation, and may have an important role in influencing the non-policy factors. The impor-tance of proper policy intervention may also increase as the mining industry moves towards more complex primary materials, and as the EU takes steps towards a circular economy.


NOx reduction in pelletizing plants

National emission ceiling directive (NEC), National and EU-level policies for limiting NOx emissions.

Platform of actors, i.e. suppliers, customers and equipment suppliers, Business case to drive down costs and emissions

High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR)

Strategic Implementation Plan on Raw Materials Energy efficiency directive,

European climate change policies,

Energy taxation, Emissions/ emission rights, EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS), EU Water Directive, Water recirculation directives (in later processing)

Energy efficiency and reduction of related GHG emissions in mineral processing,

Market competition Reduced energy demand

improves overall mineral processing economics

E-Kaldo process for WEEE

Strategic Implementation Plan on Raw Materials, Waste Framework Directive,

WEEE Directive

Increased WEEE capacity through adapted furnace technology, recovery of copper and precious metals, energy recovery from plastics contained in WEEE



https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/2018-02-28_minguide_deliverable_4-3.pdf


27

Second, mineral- and metallurgical processing is mostly affected by policies and legislation linked to general challenges in society, such as energy and resource efficiency, waste management, emis-sions to air and water, etc., rather than specific policies geared to this process segment. This often makes it difficult to establish clear cause-effect relationships, as knowing which exact legislation impacted on a specific innovation and in which way can be difficult to determine.

Third, there are some specific actions that can be taken to make the current EU policy framework more innovation friendly. Specific policies may be geared towards development and application of novel technologies, e.g. funding schemes or direct R&D subsidiaries. This seems especially appropriate in the area of more sustainable technologies. Strengthening national research institutes in mineral and metallurgical proces-sing is also desirable, which also opens up the opportunity for transferability of best practices among EU countries, as weaker countries can learn from those that are currently strong. EU Member State policies may also be improved, in so far as harmonisation of mineral policies at national levels are sought for by industry, as well as clear national mineral strategies for those EU Member States where such policies are missing. There is also a need for improved Member State mineral governance. For example, communi-cation and collaboration between different governmental bodies can be improved, and stronger linkages between national and federal state (and regional) policies is desirable, as is a simpler “One-stop-shop” type of contact point for permitting procedures.

2.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINE CLOSURE

Mining-selected waste (or simply mining waste) can be defined as a part of the materials that result from the exploration, mining and proces-sing of substances. It may consist of natural mate-rials without any modification other than crushing (e.g. ordinary mining waste, unusable mineralised materials) or of natural materials processed to varying degrees during the ore-processing and enrichment phases, and possibly contai-ning chemical, inorganic and organic additives. Overburden and topsoil are also classified as waste. When a deposit’s resources are depleted or no longer economically viable, the mine ceases operation. At this point, the final stage of site rehabilitation begins. The aim is to remove from the site or neutralise contaminants so that it may begin a new life in a non-mining capacity.


The investigation of how waste management and mine closure innovation processes are functio-ning in the different EU Member States and at EU level, and how they are supported or inhibited by national and European policy and legislation, was accomplished by a multi-stage methodology involving interviews, a questionnaire, workshop discussions, and a literature review.

Waste Management and Mine Closure, if not properly treated, can become a serious environmental issue. In addition, the fact that the wastes from extractive industries is one of the largest waste streams in volume, the sustainable operation of the sector is one of the most important priorities on the European Agenda12.

12 Policy and strategy for raw materials: The European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Raw Materials (3rd pillar of EIP RM (which is more relevant to environmental issues and waste management)).


28

The sustainable operation of the sector, however, can be achieved through the application of knowledge and innovation.

Innovation in waste management and mine closure is boosted, but in some respects also hindered. For example, the Horizon 2020 research program funded by the European Commission, with the main scope of the valorisation of extrac-tive wastes, promotes innovation. On the other hand, inconsistencies in policy, such as different interpretations of the legislation that lead to different classifications of the same waste-ma-terials across the EU-28, prove to be a hindrance for innovation to take place.

With the introduction of Extractive Waste Directive 2006/21/EC, improvement has been observed concerning site rehabilitation and after-care. The Directive played a key role, as it was able to establish a common basis for the extractive waste in all Member States on the following activities: implementing measures of this Directive on the Criteria for the classification of waste facilities; on the technical guidelines for the establishment of the financial guarantee; completing the technical requirements for waste characterisation; on the definition of inert waste; and on the harmonisation for the regular trans-mission of information.

In addition, the rehabilitation planning of mine sites is already part of the first permit issued. By the time this permitting step will be executed, rehabilitation planning will have undergone regular updating, (periodical reconsideration and, where necessary, updating permit condi-tions) depending on possible changes in the operation and in negotiations with the compe-tent authorities. In some cases, the aim is to leave as small a foot print (prevent or reduce any adverse effects on the environment and human

health) as possible, whereas in other cases, a complete change of landscape may be aimed for. Site rehabilitation is a demanding proce-dure (i.e. high cost and expertise knowledge) depending on the rate of land disturbances. In all cases, the aim is to minimise any possible negative environmental and/or human health impacts.

The challenges faced by the extractive industry, in relation to waste management and mine closure, are identified and summarised below:

Avoid wastes disposal, with waste minimisation dealing with different methods for waste recovery, and environmental friendly approaches to land reclamation;

Mining wastes reduction through turning wastes into valuable secondary raw materials by developing more efficient recycling/recovering processes (including abandoned or closed mining waste facilities);

Proper classification of the waste facilities at the site, where wastes have been deposited according to a common definition of content, volume and comprehensive waste type characterisation;

Abandoned/orphan sites rehabilitation; and New communication tools for raising

awareness and building public acceptability.

All these challenges are addressed by identifying the key drivers for innovation. The innovations in Waste Management and Mine Closure are often a result of either the effective policy framework or company’s Social Corporate Responsibility Strategy. The effective policy frameworks are those based on a good, transparent and clear legal framework that facilitates the innovation in Waste Management and sets clear rules (i.e. for the creation of new markets, products and services) in Mine Closure practices.


29


In this chapter we briefly present innovation types encountered in waste management and mine closure: A product innovation example is the invention of a new material or use for a material during the waste valorisation process. Mining industries, in order to minimise the volume of displaced wastes, process or inacti-vate the waste. The processed waste is a new raw material with new properties suitable for various applications. For example, Light Weight materials (LWMs) from Kaolin waste possess appropriate and competitive properties to meet the require-ments and functionality for multiple end-uses: construction materials, thermal and sound insu-lation, horticulture applications, etc. Process innovation happens when newly improved tools are used; such as advanced software for extrac-tive waste facilities, numerical simulation for safety issues study or environmental monito-ring programs. Marketing innovation examples comprise renovated facilities in mine sites, in the end of its economic life, such as the crea-tion of museums, cultural parks, technological centres, etc. These innovations not only achieve macroeconomic potential, but also intellectual and cultural growth potential. An Organisational innovation, for example, took place in Portugal: DGEG formulated a roadmap to rehabilitate all the closed mines with a clear description in the legal framework and established a subsidised company to execute the rehabilitation plan.

In Waste Management and Mine Closure, the policy and regulation framework plays a direct role in enabling innovation according to experts’ indication in the Policy Lab 4 workshop. Existing EU legislation, including several EU Directives are seen as important drivers, as they provide ‘room’ for innovation by imposing stricter standards that require new technologies to meet them. The

Extractive Waste Directive (Directive 2006/21/EC) on the management of wastes sets up the framework for the extractive industry wastes management with the aim of ensuring long-term stability of disposal facilities and preven-ting or minimising water and soil pollution. The implementation of EC directives (Dir 2006/21/EC, 2000/60/EC (EU Water Framework), 2014/52/EU (Envir. Impact Assessment), 2006/118/EC (Groundwater)) provide measures, procedures and guidance to prevent or minimise the adverse effects on the environment and risks to health resulting from the management of from extrac-tive industries wastes.

The Extractive Waste Directive (2006/21/EC) contains detailed provisions on requirements and specifications relating to site safety, decom-missioning, waste dumps and tailing ponds and related issues, and thus integrates the standards of the Directive into the procedure’s operation plan. State of the art technologies often do not cover these requirements. For this reason, the legal compatibility is a driver to innovation. Moreover, initiatives, such as Best Available Techniques Reference (BREF) documents, which are delivered from the EC to all MS for the progress of technologies in waste management, include additional guidance towards minimi-sing, preventing or reducing environmental and human health impacts from extractive wastes management.

Currently, after a mine ceases its operations, new land use options are considered as part of every project in the permitting phase. The implemen-tation of post mining land uses is dependent on the regulatory framework and availability of funds for the rehabilitation of land. Some types of mining allow for ‘restoration’ of land to the pre-extraction status, others can alter the landscape permanently but allow for new land


30

uses. Post mining land uses are, therefore, very dependent on both the nature of the mining activity and the extent to which planning for the post-closure phase is taken into consideration by the regulatory framework of financial incentives.

Innovation can also be seen from the perspec-tive of social acceptance and social impact. The involvement of the community, in which mining activities take place, and the public’s acceptance for it, is an important factor that boosts innovation in an indirect way. The mining industry strives for an improved company profile through more environmentally friendly practices or making health and safety issues a priority of business models. For instance, the Environmental Monitoring Programs13 are open to the public in order to build, through trans-parency, public trust. Furthermore, in almost all

investigated innovative case studies, efficient funding (charities, cohesion funding, tax reliefs, etc.) was a key driver to innovation.

Based on the project results, there are a couple of innovative practices which have been identi-fied. An indicative example is the Eden Project, in which a China Clay pit was transformed into a world-famous visitor attraction and educational centre in Cornwall, UK. Another innovative case study is the action plan for the rehabilitation of several abandoned mines in Portugal: Covas, Fonte Santa, Terramonte, Espinho, Lousal, Old dam Urgeiriça, São Domingos mine. Another innovative reclamation approach was followed in Milos Island in Greece: The perlite mine was converted after the end of its life to vineyards (see Box 3 for an overview of policy and non policy factors impacting innovation).


Eden project Cornwall local planCivil society and local communities concerns on Ecosystem protection

Action Plan for Environmental remediation of Old Mining Areas

New Royalties Policy: Since 2007, royalties from Portuguese mining companies started to be used not only to finance public entities in the exploration of geological resources, but also to support the rehabilitation of abandoned mining sites.

Local communities pressure for rehabilitation of abandoned mine sites

Vineyards as after mine life land use option

EC directives (Extractive Industries Waste, EU Water framework, Envir. Impact assessment)

Company’s Initiative for an environmentally friendly activity at the site of a restored perlite mine

Box 3 - Policy and non policy factors impacting innovation cases

13 Continuous monitoring and recording of all environmental media in the wider area of the mine site.


31


As outlined above, innovation in waste mana-gement and mine closure is mainly driven by the EU and National regulation (EU Directives and other EU policy documents relevant to the field of mineral raw materials,) and the broader policy framework (RMI and EIP on RM etc.). Social acceptance is also an important driving force towards innovation concerning the envi-ronmental sustainability profile and health and safety measures which are implemented by the extractive industries. In addition, funding (co-funding, national funds etc.) for the accom-plishment of projects is a key driver to innova-tion and the limited access to funding sources is a serious issue.

Based on the project results (D5.3), we highlight the following recommendations:

European and National regulation and mineral policies support the innovative approaches due to the clearly expressed targets for the sustai-nable development of Raw Materials, the robust environmental regulation, the prevention of waste production and the maximum utilisation of secondary raw materials in the context of the Circular Economy (see chapter 3). For the effec-tive implementation of the policies, financial guarantees/provisions, penalties (in case of no legal compatibility or insufficient actions) and returns /reliefs in taxation (in case of excellence performance) are essential.

An integrated approach towards the sustai-nability of the mining sector cannot exclude abandoned mine site remediation and the

exploitation of secondary / recycled materials. Thus, a national strategy for abandoned mining site remediation should be based on:

1. the identification and classification of the sites that present the highest envi-ronmental risk; and

2. an inventory of both active and aban-doned exploration and extraction sites following the example of DGEG rehabili-tation roadmap in Portugal.

Concerning innovation in the use of secondary/ recycled materials, i.e. the recycling and reuse of mining wastes, effective use of financial policy instruments (hazardous mine waste taxation, exclusion of non-hazardous materials from taxation) as well as the valorisation of mining wastes, were found to be crucial. Furthermore, to encourage the use of recycled/secondary materials, ways to increase the demand for such materials (i.e. by prioritising the use of recycled materials in construction projects, etc.) should be explored.

For the sustainability of the waste management and mine closure sector there is a need for investments, both from mining companies and Member States in R&D programs to promote the development of new products and services.

Public opinion about mining overall, and even-tually the Social License to operate (since waste management and mine closure have a signifi-cant environmental footprint), is a driving force for innovation in waste management and mine closure.

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/min-guide_d5.3_innovative_waste_management_and_mine_closure_ntua.pdf


32

2.5 EU MINERALS DATA The EU Commission is concerned about the European Raw Materials (RM) supply, as has been clearly stated in the Raw Materials Initiative of 2008. But for an accurate analysis on the global situation of RM supply and demand in Europe, it is key to provide reliable information on mining data, existing and forecasted mineral resources as well as mining statistics.14 The MIN-GUIDE Work Package 6 analysed the situation of mining intelligence in Europe, by surveying official and non-official data sources as well as a series of EU projects related to mineral raw mate-rials and statistics at EU level. The MIN-GUIDE project covered this stock-taking on the topics of 1. Identification and description of projects, 2. Statistical information, and 3. Resource stan-dards in the deliverable 6.1.15

2.5.1. State of the art in minerals data and statistics in Europe

Below we summarised the results of this state-of-the-art report16:

Inventory of EU projects: We have identified 66 EU projects17 related to mineral raw materials18, but only about one out of 10 projects are related to mineral data and statistics. This figure is clearly too low, if we consider that reliable statis-tical data and easy to find information, is crucial both for decision makers in the business and public policy sector. The result of the stock-ta-king is a comprehensive repository of EU and EU Member State level mineral statistics inventories regarding exploration, production, trade, and reserves and resources.19

Mining statistics: We have distributed among Policy Lab Workshop participants and other stakeholders two questionnaires20 covering several topics about data availability about how easy it is to find EU and MS countries´ data sources. We concluded that according to our survey, experts use less often the official EU information sources of mineral data and statis-tics. They use the “un-official yearbooks” and data sources. This, we think, is very relevant and establishes what can be improved and future pathways regarding usability of data and user friendly sites.

14 Definitions: Mining and mineral data in Europe cover the following categories: Mining data: information on the mining operations and related sources of data on mining in Europe (repositories,

yearbooks, etc.). Mineral resources: information and projects that have dealt with the geographical distribution and all the available

information on non-energy mineral resources in Europe (eg: minerals4EU) Mining statistics: official sources of mineral trade (production, imports and exports in volume and in value) in Europe

and the mining industry15 “Taking stock of standardisation and systematisation requirements of EU MS minerals data”.16 Work package 6 deals with mining and mineral data in Europe as well as with mining statistic, as these last type of

mining data is very important to understand the sector at the European level. The first deliverable and corresponding tasks, analysed the current state of mining knowledge in Europe and the possible shortcomings that may be present at the level of availability of such knowledge. Those shortcomings or gaps have been studied at a workshop as well as in the second deliverable, and then summarized as a list of future possible actions and recommendations.

17 FP7 and H2020 granted projects since 2010, both active and closed projects (see deliverable 6.1 available online in www.min-guide.eu).

18 Mainly those financed by the European Commission FP7 and H2020.19 These categories cover the mining process from the exploration of the resource and its quantification to the

processing and trade, these categories are those which best describe the mining industry panorama.20 The first questionnaire was “online” and completed during Policy lab 4 in Athens. The second questionnaire was more

focused on the gaps identified and was completed in situ during the Madrid policy lab.

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/deliverable_d-6-1_standardisation_and_systematisation-v27_22-02-2018.pdf




33

Resource standards: We conducted a stock-taking on the classification standards on mining reserves/resources worldwide. Two main types of standards have been identified: a) Economic/Industrial oriented systems: the CRIRSCO family (Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards) and b) Economic and social oriented systems: e.g. United Nations Framework Classification (UNECE – UNFC).

2.5.2 Data coverage, gap analysis and development needs

Based on the stock-taking and state-of-the art on minerals data and statistics, the MIN-GUIDE Policy Lab 5, held in Madrid on 23-24 May 2018, conducted an analysis of relevant gaps in mineral data coverage and information availability.

During the Policy Lab, participants discussed previously identified gaps and identified the following gaps as most crucial:

Scarcity of mining data available for the general public,

Lack of user friendly sources, and

Infrequent use and consultation of official information sources by stakeholders.

These gaps were identified in the first deliverable and validated during Policy Lab 5 and contributed to the recommendations and conclusions for the MIN-GUIDE Deliverable 6.2, “Standardisation and systematisation of EU MS minerals data: Exploring future pathways”.

Finally the results of the discussion about the above mentioned gaps are summarised below:

Inventory of EU projects: One of the main gaps found when reviewing the projects inventory was the lack of updated information and data in data repositories once the project is over. The final reports of the projects contain data that are only “valid” during the project’s life time and potentially a few years later. Since information gathered by the projects is not updated later on, it seems important that for new calls, projects should include the data repositories which could be easily updated on a regular basis.

Mining statistics: We have identified an infre-quent use and lack of user-friendly features of official EU sources of mineral data and mine-rals-mining statistics21. The results of our work show that above all researchers22 as well as other stakeholder groups are more interested in the use of non-official mineral yearbooks and data sources. This is mainly due to the fact that the official sources are not user friendly and a lot of data and statistics are not sufficiently disaggre-gated, thus rendering them unfit to use. We have also identified that the most used statistics and maps related to mining and mineral resources in Europe only refer to metallic ores. The addition of dimensional stones, aggregates and industrial minerals to primary production statistics will provide a more realistic image of the mining industry in Europe.

Resource standards: Our results indicated that different reporting codes are used for resources and reserves in the different EU MS countries.

21 EUROSTAT, PRODCOM list, Material Flow Accounts, and other.22 We have identified by questionnaires and by personal interviews, that researchers (of all kinds, including those from

geological surveys and policy makers) looking for specific information on European mining statistics and data, usually tend to look for such information using unofficial EU sources.

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/deliverable_d-6-2_exploring_future_pathways_final.pdf




34

Therefore, it is impossible to benchmark the available information at a European level23. We conclude that the best possible option would be to have a voluntary national -level alignment of the reporting standards to an EU- level system of reporting such as the UNFC or CRIRSCO models.

Social awareness in mining: the public percep-tion of mining and data / information related to this topic has also been an important mining related issue studied during the MIN-GUIDE Policy Lab workshops. The Social License to Operate concept was an important topic analysed during the Madrid Policy Lab.24 The conclusions of the workshop pointed out that during the last 30 years until now, one of the main obstacles for the development of «greenfield» mining projects in Europe were environmental considerations (Environmental impact assessment procedures, administrative processing25, and environmental NGOs as indicated in the Minlex report).26 But during the last 10 years27 the main issue against mining operations is local (not necessarily envi-ronmental considerations) or even national level opposition. This trend is not exclusive for brownfield projects in areas where mining already is an economically important industry. Thus, we conclude that another important barrier

to mining in Europe is the European public opinion not in favour of mining projects in its territory (the «not in my backyard» theory28). Therefore, in addition to environmental conside-rations, it is also important to point out the need of a «social licence to operate (SLO)» or social acceptance, which also relates to non-environ-mental considerations.

Possibly the main shortcoming29 of most analysed European projects is the way they share the results with the public. This is why the new H2020 calls related to the Raw Materials Initiative30 include mandatory awareness raising, and communica-tion aspects. It is widely accepted31 that social acceptance of mining begins with information in early stages of education and public awareness. However, there are very few activities undertaken by projects funded by the European Commission oriented towards societal awareness and educa-tion on raw materials. There are however some projects including primary and secondary schools (as mentioned during the Raw Materials Week 2017) such as Suscritmat (www.suscritmat.eu), EIT – RM@Schools (https://rmschools.isof.cnr.it/) and the European Minerals day (https://www.ima-europe.eu/about-ima-europe/events/euro-pean-minerals-days-2019). Those three projects

23 That is comparing the results of the various definitions and calculations of reserves and resources of mining deposits among reporting codes in Europe. That common language is that of reserve classification standards. Although there is a European standard, the PERC this is not mandatory, and European companies use the most convenient according to their shareholders.

24 See: https://www.min-guide.eu/laboratory/policy-laboratory-525 it takes so long to admit a mining project, it depends on so many entities, that it is almost impossible to determine a

priori what is the duration of the process26 See MINLEX project (https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/18c19395-6dbf-11e7-b2f2-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en)27 https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/workshop-social-acceptance-european-raw-materials-sector28 See: https://futurechallenges.org/local/not-in-my-backyard-please/ and https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/

environ.2014.2.issue-1/environ-2015-0029/environ-2015-0029.xml29 See conclusions : deliverable 6.1 at www.min-guide.eu30 https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sc5-10-2019-2020.html31 The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. K. Moffat &

A. Zhang. Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation, PO Box 883, Kenmore, QLD 4069, Australia. Resources Policy. Volume 39, March 2014, Pages 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003

http://www.suscritmat.eu

https://rmschools.isof.cnr.it/

https://www.ima-europe.eu/about-ima-europe/events/european-minerals-days-2019



https://www.min-guide.eu/laboratory/policy-laboratory-5

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/18c19395-6dbf-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en


https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/workshop-social-acceptance-european-raw-materials-sector

https://futurechallenges.org/local/not-in-my-backyard-please

https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/environ/2/1/article-p27.xml

https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/environ/2/1/article-p27.xml



https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sc5-10-2019-2020.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420713001141?via%3Dihub


35

were invited to specific sessions during the 2018 Policy Lab 5 in Madrid. The focus of the discus-sions on these projects was that social aware-ness is the basis for subsequent social license procedures. The procedures in the social license depend on the degree of acceptance of the project and the information in the community. So authors like Sícoli (201632) determine 4 levels of accep-tance from lowest to highest: withdrawal from the project, acceptance, approval (the company already has credibility) and trust. The conclusion from the discussion were:

The Society needs to be well informed of what mining is, and how the raw materials of the products we use in our daily life are obtained in a responsible way.

With such background the general public will be in a better position to judge mining projects fairly.

We need professionals with skills and leadership on the social aspects related to mining (corporate social responsibility, SLO, mining and wide society learning, etc), so that they are able to raise awareness on mining by preparing didactic material for schools and communicate mining in social media etc.

2.5.3. Main findings

Information and mining data: There is a clear need of updated and continued information provision once a raw material project has ended.

Data accessibility and user-friendliness: Our results indicate that Europe has sufficient amount of mining statistical data provided in technical formats. However, what is really needed are accessible and easy to find (user-friendly) information that can reach the general public, stakeholders, policy makers and researchers.

Public awareness for raw materials: Our results show that Europe needs more research projects and permanent databases addressing minerals and mining data and knowledge (including statistics) oriented to all levels of the public sphere, from education in schools to public policy administrators:

Low level of knowledge about European resources and deposits: The MIN-GUIDE Policy Lab 5 participants were asked about which Critical Raw Materials (CRMs) are today obtained in European mines, either as a main ore or as a by-product of the mining of other elements or substances. Interestingly, there was a certain knowledge of minerals that are NOT found in Europe (e.g. mostly about irresponsibly sourced minerals such as Coltan, Rare Earths, etc.), but a low level of knowledge about those which do exist in Europe (i.e. Fluorspar, tungsten, etc.). Thus, we conclude that there is a low level of knowledge about mining resources and mines in Europe. This supports the idea that there is a need of more research projects on the topics of “mining for society» and «knowledge

32 https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/98135/TCISP1de1.pdf; jsessionid=E7E5DBE0EB0FD2C4BF10FF4E9E96F362?sequence=1

https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/98135/TCISP1de1.pdf;jsessionid=E7E5DBE0EB0FD2C4BF10FF4E9E96F362?sequence=1



36

about the European mining». Consequently, there is a need for more outreach activities about the mining industry in the EU and its relevance to Europe at all communication levels. These levels start from the level of primary education and non-technical society in general (communication of mining even broad spectrum of society) to the most technical level of researchers (geologists – engineers and also from other and other disciplines, policy makers etc.)

Our results indicate that in the field of mineral and mining data, the EU may need a longer term strategy, such as the development of a European Mining Agency. Such an institution would be tasked to control and supervise EU mining legislation and its mineral policy framework as well as EU mineral Intelligence. In a similar way as other important decentralised EU agencies such as the European Environmental Agency, the European Chemicals Agency or the European Medicines Agency.

2.5.4. Recommendations for standardised data reporting and classification

Include all mineral resources in mining statistics

We can conclude that mining activity in the EU is slowly declining, but the existing available figures will provide a more realistic picture if we include the bulk of mineral commodities (industrial minerals & rocks) and not only the metallic ores production. The public traditionally

considers that mining in Europe is only repre-sented by metallic and coal mines. However, the reality is that mining in the EU both in terms of volume and production value is mainly repre-sented by the quarrying of stones, industrial minerals (sometimes in underground mines) and aggregates. In fact Europe is almost self-sufficient in producing many industrial minerals and aggre-gates. However, it is a significant net-importer of most metals and metal ores33. Thus, it is impor-tant to include information on volume and value of the actual EU mining industry, products such as aggregates, industrial minerals and dimensional stones, into the official EU statistical mining data (often only referring exclusively to metallic ores).

Review of Prodcom – a more detailed picture on mineral resources

MIN-GUIDE WP 6 has also been supporting DG Grow unit C.2 “Resources efficiency and raw mate-rials” in the working group on PRODCOM statis-tics. We have provided input and a case study to the DR Grow proposal on Non-Energy Raw Materials: After analysing EUROSTAT–Prodcom codes, our proposal was to establish sub codes by disaggregation of commodities. This approach will improve the situation at EU level with regards to reliable official data on key mineral resources such as CRM, metallic ores, industrial and chemical minerals and dimensional stones, which are the building blocks of mining in the EU. It is clear that reliable statistical data (produc-tion and trade) on every mineral commodity is crucial when doing an analysis of the circular economy approach.

33 Mining in Europe: http://www.euromines.org/mining-europe

http://www.euromines.org/mining-europe


37

2.6 MINERALS POLICY GOVERNANCE

Governing the secure and sustainable supply of minerals from primary production faces particularly “wicked” dynamics. Mineral policies and governance arrangements address these underlying dynamics, i.e. multiple stakeholder interests, competing land-use interests (e.g. tourism or conservation versus mining), or institutional complexity (e.g. different policy objectives), as they often manifest themselves in market failures, land-use conflicts, and/or lack of societal trust and acceptance of the sector.

2.6.1. Context and Challenges

As also shown by the previous chapters in this report, public policy does have a large impact on mining throughout the value-chain: from exploration and extraction, to deep sea mining, to metallurgical processing, and to mine closure and remediation. A few challenges listed in the above chapters pertaining to policy are:

The need for policy mixes (e.g. financial incentives for investments in addition to regulatory instruments).

A call for clear legislation to avoid policy duplication (as this makes e.g. permitting processes lengthy).

The need for effective strategic policy planning frameworks and long-term orientation (sought after, for instance, by industry to establish security of investment, and include resource-related sustainability considerations more strongly).

The requirement of coordination between ‘linked’ policy areas and sectors (e.g. influencing mining and minerals policy).

The need for stakeholder involvement (e.g. address low levels of public acceptance and NIMBY-attitudes towards mining).

Recognising the need to understand the complexity of minerals governance in securing sustainable primary mineral production, Work Package 2 (WP2) of MIN-GUIDE conducted an extensive stocktaking of minerals- and related policies, validated good practice examples, and conducted numerous interviews with national policymakers to compile comprehensive data on minerals policy governance in EU Member States. The results of WP2 are presented in the two reports Good practice cases on minerals policy governance (D2.2), and EU and EU MS Minerals Policy Report (D2.3)34.

2.6.2. Approaches for effective minerals policy governance

The concept of governance refers to the process of managing, steering and guiding public affairs by governing procedures and institutions of public authorities. Governance includes processes that go beyond formal planning and permitting proce-dures, and are in place to achieve general coordi-nation of policy decision-making, design or imple-mentation of policy instruments or stakeholder involvement. The MIN-GUIDE approach to good governance utilises principles of ‘governance for sustainable development’ in order to identify effective mineral policy governance in the EU (see Figure 2).

34 The good practice cases and full list of governance mechanisms in respective EU MS can also be found on the Online Guide: www.min-guide.eu

https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/MIN-GUIDE_D2%202%20policy%20governance%20frameworks_final_0.pdf


https://www.min-guide.eu/sites/default/files/project_result/min-guide_d2_3_eu_and_eu_ms_minerals_policy_report.pdf




38

Particularly relevant aspects in the context of minerals policy are horizontal- and vertical policy integration, participation, long-term visio-ning and short-term action, as well as reflexi-vity and learning (evaluation and adaptation).35 These four aspects of the MIN-GUIDE approach for Good Governance36 correspond to specific challenges often faced by the minerals policy sector: A policy strategy can provide guidance and show commitment towards long-term goals. Horizontal- and vertical policy integration

responds to challenges of policy coherence between sectors and national-regional enti-ties.37 Stakeholder involvement can be used to include community needs and/ or increase public acceptance and, at a later stage, achieve a Social Licence to Operate.38 Lastly, policy evalua-tion links to the responsiveness and capacity of governments to (re-)design policies depen-ding on their effectiveness, as well as shows a commitment to adhere to certain targets and objectives of a given policy.

35 Endl, “Addressing ‘Wicked Problems’ through Governance for Sustainable Development—A Comparative Analysis of National Mineral Policy Approaches in the European Union.”

36 See Deliverable 2.2 Minerals Policy Governance in Europe: Good Practice Examples in the EU Member States (p.4) for a full explanation of the MIN-GUIDE approach for Good Governance

37 Klaus Jacob and Axel Volkery, “Institutions and Instruments for Government Self-Regulation: Environmental Policy Integration in a Cross-Country Perspective,” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 6, no. 3 (December 2004): 291–309; Fiona Nunan, Adrian Campbell, and Emma Foster, “Environmental Mainstreaming: The Organisational Challenges of Policy Integration: Environmental Mainstreaming,” Public Administration and Development 32, no. 3 (August 2012): 262–77

38 European Commission and Directorate-General for Internal Market, Raw Materials Scoreboard European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials.

Figure 2 - MIN-GUIDE Approach for Good Governance

MIN

-GUI

DE A

ppro

ach

for

Good

Gov

erna

nce

Strategic policy framework

Policy Strategiesand Action Plans

Horizontal & Vertical policyintegration mechanisms

Policy integration

Policy Evaluation

Policy learning and appraisal

ImpactAssesment,indicators

Stakeholder involvment

‘‘Inclusive’’policy-making

Mining sectorstakeholdermanagement


39

Strategic Policy Framework

Public policy faces particular challenges: notably, streamlining policy instruments and objectives, coordinating the work of different authorities, and showing commitment to the minerals sector in response to external pressure (e.g. SLO, market fluctuations, etc.). As highlighted in the previous chapters, industry is calling for harmonisation of minerals policies and clear minerals policy strategies in EU MS.

In an effort to address these challenges, 14 out of 28 EU MS have designed and implemented National Minerals Strategies (NMS). A NMS is a guiding document devising responsibilities and mandates for involved authorities along with a

set of objectives, targets and clear timeframes for implementation.39 The presence of a NMS can indicate the importance attributed to the mine-rals sector and a government’s commitment to strategically address the challenges of a stable and sustainable supply of minerals. Thus, a NMS can provide guidance to public institutions and stakeholders on the direction and expectation of the national (or sub-national) level with regard to regulating the sector. A NMS should set out to create the ‘right framework conditions for mining’; by ensuring coherence between regional and local strategies and other relevant policies, and, when appropriate, integrating a mix of diffe-rent policy instruments.

39 Endl, “Addressing ‘Wicked Problems’ through Governance for Sustainable Development—A Comparative Analysis of National Mineral Policy Approaches in the European Union.”

40 Jacob and Volkery, “Institutions and Instruments for Government Self-Regulation”; Nunan, Campbell, and Foster, “Environmental Mainstreaming.”

Policy Integration

One of the main challenges of minerals policy is its interconnectedness with other policy areas. Hence, mechanisms of policy integration should address ‘the lack of coordination’ between relevant policy areas and, consequently, avoid policy duplication or inconsistencies. One example is the use of Arial drone exploration technology that has been influenced in its licencing and deployment by aviation policy, as well as policies on data regulation and transparency, privacy and security, education and labour. Thus, in order to ensure more effective licencing and use of innovative exploration approaches, there is a need for cross-sectoral collaboration of different public authorities, which can be achieved through

Horizontal Policy Integration (HPI) (ministerial and cross departmental collaboration). Moreover, one of the previous chapters stated that “stronger linkages between national and federal state (and regional) policies are desirable, as is a simpler ‘one-stop-shop’ type of contact point for permitting procedures”. Thus, a good governance approach to minerals policy also calls for mechanisms of Vertical Policy Integration (VPI) (collaboration between different levels of government).

A total of 14 EU MS out of the 21 EU MS that were surveyed reported having active HPI mechanisms, which are (most often) applied to


40

tackle a specific challenge, e.g. silo-thinking or conflicting objectives/agendas between related departments. Policy integration often requires both vertical and horizontal mechanisms to achieve effective integration of policies with cross-sectoral importance and impacts.40 In the MIN-GUIDE survey, 12 EU MS reported having

EU MS that actually have stakeholder involvement mechanisms in place: out of the surveyed EU MS (21), a total of 18 countries reported having active stakeholder involvement mechanisms in place (8 EU MS even stated that they have 2 active mechanisms in place). The high share of countries applying stakeholder involvement mechanisms indicates the importance governments put on public awareness and involvement, as well as the importance for the mining sector to realise stakeholder involvement as a necessary part of good governance. If done well, stakeholder involvement processes increase the chances of acceptance/understanding of policy activities (by external stakeholders), the understanding of the concerns of stakeholders (by policymakers and industry), possibilities for alleviating impacts from extraction activities particularly for local communities, and the utilisation of knowledge and expertise of stakeholders (by policy and industry alike). Therefore, special attention should be paid to assuring the quality of stakeholder involvement processes. There are several good practice cases on how to involve stakeholders in minerals policy and governance (see examples from e.g. Austria, Finland and Greece).

41 JRC analysis based on data from the (2013) Flash Eurobarometer 363 related to question 6.5 of the report. Values were reported by country as well as average values for the EU – which corresponds to EU-27 since the survey took place before Croatia joined the EU.

42 European Commission and Directorate-General for Internal Market, Raw Materials Scoreboard European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials.

active VPI mechanisms, in which 9 out of these are directly concerned with minerals policy. The large number of minerals policy VPI reflects the importance that EU MS are attributing to involving local and regional authorities, as they often are responsible for the ‘day-to-day’ administration of policies, e.g. permitting procedures.

Stakeholder Involvement

Sustainable minerals supply is influenced by multiple stakeholder interests, for example industry representatives, individual compa-nies, research and innovation actors, concerned communities, etc. Hence, stakeholder involve-ment in minerals policy not only concerns public acceptance, but also the inclusion of ‘external’ expertise and knowledge in the policy process. Public acceptance and awareness is a particular challenge for the mining sector, with low levels of public acceptance compared to other sectors.41 Both chapter 2.1 and chapter 2.5 outlined the need to improve public acceptance and awar-eness to address the NIMBY-effect and SLO. Cooperation between government, industry, and experts was recommended in the chapter on deep sea mining, to ensure decisions are based on the best available scientific knowledge. Involving stakeholders and the public is an important tool in addressing the lack of acceptance and legiti-macy of the extractive sector , and understand the potential for mitigation and compensation of negative impacts on stakeholders.42

The importance of involving stakeholders in minerals policy is also illustrated by the number of


41

Policy evaluation

The effectiveness of policies is influenced by a government’s ability to design, implement and evaluate policies to ensure internal and external consistency, and the overall coherence of the policy.43 This has a direct influence on industry, as chapter 2.3 on Processing indicates: “(…) imposing new policies might drive compa-nies towards process improvements and more environmentally sound operations, but may also stifle development and lead to less inno-vation as compliance costs increase”, and, thus, have both intended and unintended effects. Hence, the fourth building block of minerals policy governance addresses the government’s ability to be responsive to impacts, consistency and coherence of the respective policies.44 Policy evaluation can provide important infor-mation leading to the revision of policy, adapta-tion of targets/goals or perhaps reorganisation of resources to achieve stipulated targets, and, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of the policy under scrutiny.

The MIN-GUIDE data shows that policy evaluation seems to be a somewhat unexplored process in EU MS’ minerals policy governance frameworks. What is interesting to note is that the mineral policy evaluation mechanisms applied were about monitoring targets and outputs, indicating a proactive and attentive approach by the MS to improve and amend strategies and legislation. Moreover, some EU MS included either stakehol-ders or external auditors in the evaluation process in order to create process legitimacy and objectivity.


Based on the overall governance challenges of the minerals sector, and public policy challenges outlined in the previous innovation chapters, this chapter aims to provide readers with a concrete set of recommendations. The recommendations follow the MIN-GUIDE approach for good gover-nance, together with good practice cases and examples from EU MS (see deliverable 2.3 for full overview of EU MS and deliverable 2.2 for good practice cases).

Setting up a strategic, long-term, and clear minerals policy framework

This would entail setting up a National Minerals Strategy (NMS) at the EU MS level with clear objectives and targets, as well as specified time-frames for completion. A strategy shows commit-ment and long-term planning for public sector actions, which, in turn, can help stakeholders (e.g. industry, all government ministries, sub-na-tional authorities, etc.) anticipate developments and adapt accordingly. A strategy can contri-bute to streamlining policy instruments and objectives, coordinating the work of different authorities, and provide guidance and cohe-rency between national and regional policies, for example. For setting up a NMS, there is no ‘one-size fits all’ solution. However, one can look at previously validated ‘good practice’ examples that could be transferred to other EU MS. For example, key quality aspects of the Swedish Mineral Strategy and Finland’s National Action Plan were: 1. a participatory- and stakehol-der-centred approach through communication

43 Jacob and Volkery, “Institutions and Instruments for Government Self-Regulation.”44 Jacob and Volkery, “Institutions and Instruments for Government Self-Regulation.”




42

and cooperative decision-making that created commitment and legitimacy for later implemen-tation of actions, and 2. collaborative in invol-ving stakeholders for concrete implementation of actions. The Portuguese good practice case is another strategic policy framework: it provides three regulatory instruments, integrating land use planning policy and mining policy at the national, regional, and local level and guarantees that mineral resources are considered on equal footing with other land-uses.

Establish mechanisms for Horizontal- and Vertical Policy Integration

Horizontal Policy Integration (HPI) mechanisms can facilitate collaboration and links to various other public (i.e. non-mining) policy sectors. Ultimately, HPI mechanisms contribute to policy coherence and help avoid the design of conflicting policy instruments that could hamper industry innovation deployment or mining permitting procedures by contributing to alignment of objectives and learning between ministries/departments. As the mining-value chain is often linked to legislation and policies in various sectors dealing with, e.g. waste management, pollutant emissions, etc., the need to implement HPI mechanisms to ensure coherence and compliance between policies is even greater. Due not only to the division of responsibility, but also to the risk of conflicting national- regional policies or differing agendas, collaboration is needed between national and federal/regional entities. Vertical Policy Integration (VPI) can strengthen coordination and communication between national and sub-national entities. Depending on the context, the involvement of

sub-national actors in the design of a policy can contribute to a sense of ownership and commitment, rather than if they are involved later on in the implementation process. One example of coordinating responsible authorities and streamlining policy in the mining value-chain is the set-up of ‘one-stop-shops’ for permitting.

A number of characteristics of effective HPI and VPI mechanisms, however, dependent on the institutional structure or political administrative system of a country, are highlighted:

A formalised mechanism with continuous meetings may give regularity and continuity to the process;

An on-demand mechanism may be more flexible and better suited in contexts dealing with a specific task at hand or ad-hoc challenges;

Mechanisms used as early in the policy process as possible (design, ex-ante revision), and not only in an implementation-phase, and;

Mechanisms should have legitimacy to make concrete decisions, e.g. representatives participating should have decision-making mandates.


43

Set up context-specific stakeholder involvement mechanisms

Both the involvement of stakeholders, such as academia, industry and civil society organisa-tions (e.g. environmental NGOs), as well as the public are of vital importance to a good gover-nance approach to minerals policy governance. A stakeholder mechanism can be a way to increase public acceptance and establish a sense of ‘ownership’, but it can also be an opportunity to create legitimacy or include expertise from e.g. academia and industry. The following characte-ristics are considered for effective stakeholder involvement:

Consider what the ‘right mix’45 of stakeholders is according to the context (integration of stakeholder expertise or creating legitimacy);

Go beyond mechanisms of just ‘consultation’ or ‘compliant submission’, but seek active participation and co-development to establish long-term fora for trust and legitimacy;

Set up mechanisms that allow for continuous feedback of stakeholders into the policy process e.g. committees or working groups. Respective mechanisms for stakeholder involvement contribute both to increased awareness (in public processes) and integration of external expertise (in mechanisms involving e.g. academia);

Include issues of mitigation and compensation of impacts relevant for stakeholders in the discussion (e.g. contributions include greening, mitigating local nuisance, or contributing to a general development fund to support local communities).

MIN-GUIDE Good Practice cases46 indicate some commonalities for effective stakeholder involve-ment mechanisms:

a. long-term approach to stakeholder invol-vement by setting up an alliance (Austria), network (Finland), or committee (Greece);

b. involvement of a diverse mix of stakehol-ders, and;

c. all mechanisms allow stakeholder invol-vement in concrete decision-making (i.e. establishing common objectives, adap-ting/implementing certain standards, contribute to knowledge-based deci-sion-making or clarify social impact and possible contributions).

Develop systematic policy evaluation tools

Policy evaluation provides important information to revise policy by adapting goals or potentially reorganising the use of resources to achieve stipulated objectives and outcomes. Such mechanisms should:

Consist of a mix of internal assessment and external audits;

45 Bicket, M., Watson, T., 2016, The MIN-GUIDE common approach (Deliverable 1.1)46 Examples from the good practice cases validated at the MIN-GUIDE Policy Lab 1 are taken from Austria, Finland and

Greece.


44

3Circular Economy

Be based on quantitative and qualitative indicators;

Be carried out in regular intervals (e.g. every 2-3 years);

Pay careful attention to the utilisation of evaluation results and its feedback to the policy design and revision stage.

In addition, due to the low prevalence of evalua-tion processes applied in EU MS, actions are proposed for:

Increased effort to raise the awareness on the importance of evaluation for avoiding conflicting policy instruments and creating a more coherent policy framework, and;

A focus on information and peer learning exchanges for the transfer of existing EU MS good practices in this area among relevant public authorities.


3Circular Economy


46


47

Environmental problems, such as biodiversity loss, resource depletion, excessive land use, and water-, air-, and soil pollution are increa-singly threatening to destabilise the earth’s biophysical systems.47 To address such sustaina-bility challenges in an economic system where growth is associated with a ‘take-make-dispose’ paradigm, there is a pressing need to transition to more sustainable societies and systems of consumption and production.48 One approach to address flawed structures of market externalities within a finite system of resources is the concept of Circular Economy (CE). Circular Economy can be understood as a system which is restorative or regenerative by intention and design, in which products are designed and optimised for a cycle of disassembly and reuse, thereby moving away from the previous linear growth approach of use- and –throw away.49

Although Circular Economy is not a novel concept, it has recently been gaining momentum on the political agenda.50 Importance of transitioning to a CE became evident in e.g. China’s 2009 Circular Economy Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China, and, more notably for Europe, in the context of EU’s 2015 Circular Economy Strategy.51 The CE package of the EU addresses environmental- and market challenges, the need of a secure and sustainable supply of raw materials (EIP SIP), and the competitiveness and

sustainability of a European single market. With the CE strategy, the commission stated that ‘ it is imperative to ‘transition to a more circular economy, where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimised’ in order to foster energy savings and reduce Green House Gas emissions.52 The CE strategy sets ambitious targets in a number of areas that are facilitating the move towards a circular and sustainable economy. Key elements of the strategy include revised legislation on waste, which supported recycling of municipal and packaging waste, reduction of landfill (and promotion of economic instruments to discourage landfilling), harmonised and improved calculation methods for recycling rates throughout the EU, concrete measures to promote re-use and stimulate industrial symbiosis (turning the by-product of one industry into the production input of another), as well as economic incentives for producers to put greener products on the market.53 In January 2018, as a part of continuous efforts to transition to a CE, the EU Commission adopted a new set of measures that included a strategy for plastics, a Communication on waste legislations, a monitoring framework on progress, and especially relevant in the context of MIN-GUIDE, a report on critical raw materials and the Circular Economy.54

3. Circular Economy

47 Johan Rockström et al., “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity,” Ecology and Society 14, no. 2 (2009).

48 Donella H. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and Dennis L. Meadows, The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, Reprint (London: Earthscan, 2009).

49 McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. 1st ed. New York: North Point Press, 2002.

50 Helen Kopnina and Eleanor Shoreman-Ouimet, eds., Sustainability: Key Issues (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge, 2015).

51 European Commission, 201552 European Commission: Closing the loop, Press Release, Brussels, 2 December 2015. 53 European Commission, 2015.54 European Commission, 2018.


48

The report on critical raw materials and the Circular Economy highlights the potential to minimise supply risks of the 27 critical raw materials (CRMs) through circularity and substitution. As the demand for critical raw materials continues to grow (e.g. irreplaceable in solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles), due to rapid growth of emerging economies and acceleration of technological innovation, the need for a secure and stable supply of these minerals becomes imperative.55 The majority of the 27 CRMs identified by the EU are produced and supplied from non-European countries, making the EU susceptible to e.g. volatile resource prices and supply uncertainties. Consequently, increased resource efficiency, substitution and recycling are considered risk-reducing measures in securing a stable supply of minerals and thereby enabling the continued transition to a circular economy.56

MIN-GUIDE results address the aspect of resource efficiency in fostering circularity through in-depth understanding of good practice inno-vation cases in the EU throughout the mining value-chain (www.min-guide.eu). By explaining innovation processes and respective sustaina-bility impacts, as well as the contextual factors contributing to innovation (e.g. policy, financial, etc.), MIN-GUIDE promotes an understanding and potential transferability of innovations that contribute to circularity within the mining value chain. One example of innovation in mineral and metallurgical processing is the E-Kaldo process at a smelter in Rönnskär that allows for the increase of WEEE (Waste Electrical and

Electronic Equipment) recycling by nearly 200%, closing the loop for base and precious metals. Another innovation in processing is the applica-tion of Sensor-Based Sorting (SBS) machines for dry separation of coarse particles: the automa-tisation of manual sorting (handpicking) using sensor technology allows mineral separation at higher capacities. The innovation is an example of technology transfer from one application (recycling) to another (mineral beneficiation) and thereby contributes to less waste within the process. These process innovations are examples of eco-innovation in so far as it results in ‘a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and the negative impacts of resource use (including energy use) compared to relevant alternatives.57

Examples of innovation fostering circularity were also identified in e.g. practices of mine-closure. For example, in the case of an old-zinc-lead plant in Lavrion mining district (Greece) being transformed into a technological and cultural park. The Lavrion Technological and Cultural Park area is a unique monument of industrial architecture and archaeology. In Greece, there is no similar experience of re-use of an industrial monument of this magnitude. The attempt for double reuse, the development of museum spaces coexisting with new scientific and research spaces, was the central idea of planning. This example differs from the ‘process optimisation’ that often is coupled with CE to encompass innovations within a broader sustainability approach and including social dimensions, which also may contribute to a circular and more sustainable economy.58

55 UNEP: Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. A report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel.

56 European Commission: Commission Staff Working Document – Report on Critical Raw Materials and the Circular Economy, Brussels 16.1.2018, SWD(2018) 36 Final.

57 Kemp & Pearson, 2007. 58 Murray et al., 2017.


49

Optimisation of processes and increased recy-cling and reuse of raw materials are important and integral steps of transitioning to a circular economy. However, the need for virgin materials and primary production to foster technological innovations and a circular economy still remains high, as the supply of secondary resources (i.e. recycling of waste) still remains relatively low in the EU (e.g. due to lack of sorting and recycling technologies, CRMs locked up in long-life assets, etc.).59 Hence, there is a need for production and sourcing of critical raw materials to support a shift to a circular economy (e.g. the need for energy-efficient technologies).

The effort to attain a secure and sustainable supply of raw materials is promoted through two of the three pillars of the Raw Materials Initiative, i.e. increasing supply from European sources and ensuring sustainable and secure sourcing of minerals on world markets. One of the major challenges for achieving a sustainable supply from European sources is in providing adequate policy framework conditions (effective permitting, long-term orientation etc.),60 which, in turn, becomes one building block towards a holistic approach of what constitutes a circular economy. In this regard, MIN-GUIDE investigates effective policy frameworks that foster innovative and sustainable solutions for a mineral supply from EU sources according to the second pillar of the RMI. Challenges for achieving such policy frameworks are a lack of comprehensive databases and scattered information on minerals- and related policies in the EU that often lead to non-harmonised terminology, inconsistencies, incomprehensiveness, and difficulties in localising and obtaining relevant up-to-date information for policymakers and different user-groups.

Supporting the EU and EU MS in addressing these challenges, the MIN-GUIDE project created a user-friendly knowledge repository known as the Online Guide, which is providing policy-, permitting- and good practice guidance to policy, industry and key stakeholders in an effort to promote sustainable and secure production of minerals in the EU. The Online Guide includes recommendations on:

A clear minerals policy framework, streamlined legislations, permitting procedures and minerals data repository for EU MS that provide a holistic view of a more effective minerals policy frameworks.

The need to understand the interlinkages between innovation and policy: Policy can both act as a barrier and enabler for innovation, and appropriate governance measures are needed to ensure the effectiveness of policies.

In this regard, the analysis of policy impact on innovation in different mining value-chain stages outlined:

1. the need for policy mixes (i.e. applying different instruments types following the same goal);

2. a long-term strategy and orientation; 3. avoidance of policy duplication by

establishing coordination between linked policy areas and sectors; and

4. stakeholder involvement.

Thus, the transition to a Circular Economy may see the emergence of increased value-chain

59 European Commission: Commission Staff Working Document – Report on Critical Raw Materials and the Circular Economy, Brussels 16.1.2018, SWD(2018) 36 Final.

60 EIP SIP part II Action area n° II.1: Minerals Policy Framework.


50

integration (mining with other parts of the raw material value chain) etc., to promote closed-loop production systems. As highlighted by the EU Commission, and shown by the MIN-GUIDE results, the intrinsically linked nature of raw materials to an array of industry and policy sectors further calls for cross-sectoral and stakeholder integra-tion to achieve policy coherence, legitimacy and awareness: This applies both to the strategic policy agenda and circular economy package, and equally so to more narrowly framed policy agendas, such as industrial manufacturing or WEEE recycling. Thus, the need for policy instru-ments facilitating innovation, long-term strate-gies, ministerial collaboration, policy integration and coherence is interlinked with the objective of transitioning to a sustainable, circular, low carbon, resource efficient and competitive economy.


51

Badera, J. “Problems of the Social Non-Acceptance of Mining Projects with Particular Emphasis on the European Union – a Literature Review.” Environmental & Socio-Economic Studies 2, no. 1 (March 1, 2014): 27–34. retrieved: [https://doi.org/10.1515/environ-2015-0029.]

Bergek, A. et al., “Analyzing the Functional Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems: A Scheme of Analysis,” Research Policy 37, no. 3 (April 2008): 407–29

Bicket, M., Watson, T., The MIN-GUIDE common approach (2016) (Deliverable 1.1)

Clausen, S., & Mcallister, M. L. (2001). An Integrated Approach to Mineral Policy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 227–244;

David M. Lam and Colin Mackenzie, “Human and Organizational Factors Affecting Telemedicine Utilization within U.S. Military Forces in Europe,” Telemedicine and E-Health 11, no. 1 (February 2005): 70–78,

Endl, A., “Addressing “Wicked Problems” through Governance for Sustainable Development – A Comparative Analysis of National Mineral Policy Approaches in the European Union”, Sustainability, (2017) no.9.

Euromines, ‘Mining in Europe’, (2018) [http://www.euromines.org/mining-europe]

European Commission, EIP Strategic Implementation Plan, EIP SIP part II Action area n° II.1: Minerals Policy Framework (2013) [https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/eip-raw-materials/en/content/strategic-implementation-plan-part-ii]

European Commission, National Minerals Policy Indicators – Framework conditions for the sustainable supply of raw materials in the EU, (2014) [https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/5562/attachments/1/translations/en/]

European Commission, Circular Economy Package, (2015) [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm]

European Commission: Closing the loop, Press Release, Brussels, 2 December (2015). [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6203_en.htm]

European Commission, Horizon2020 (2017), [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sc5-10-2019-2020.html]

European Commission: Commission Staff Working Document – Report on Critical Raw Materials and the Circular Economy, Brussels 16.1, SWD (2018) 36 Final. [https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/27348/attachments/]

European Commission and Industry Directorate-General for Internal Market Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Raw Materials Scoreboard European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials. (Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2016).

EU publication Legal framework for mineral extraction and permitting procedures for exploration and exploitation in the EU (MINLEX) (2017). [https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/18c19395-6dbf-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en]

EUROSTAT, Material Flow Accounts Statistics –material footprints, (2018), [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Material_flow_accounts_statistics_-_material_footprints]

REFERENCES

https://doi.org/10.1515/environ-2015-0029

http://www.euromines.org/mining-europe

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/eip-raw-materials/en/content/strategic-implementation-plan-part-ii

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/eip-raw-materials/en/content/strategic-implementation-plan-part-ii

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/5562/

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/5562/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6203_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6203_en.htm



https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/27348

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/27348



https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Material_flow_accounts_statistics_-_material_footprints

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Material_flow_accounts_statistics_-_material_footprints


52

Jacob, Klaus, and Axel Volkery. “Institutions and Instruments for Government Self-Regulation: Environmental Policy Integration in a Cross-Country Perspective.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 6, no. 3 (December 2004): 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1387698042000305211.

Kemp & Pearson, 2007 [https://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf]

Kopnina, Helen, and Eleanor Shoreman-Ouimet, eds. Sustainability: Key Issues. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge, 2015.

McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. 1st ed. New York: North Point Press, 2002.

Meadows, Donella H., Jørgen Randers, and Dennis L. Meadows. The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Reprint. London: Earthscan, 2009.

Mészáros, A. Not in My Backyard Please! Future Challenge, (2012), [https://futurechallenges.org/local/not-in-my-backyard-please/]

MIN-GUIDE (2018), [www.min-guide.eu]

Moffat, Kieren, and Airong Zhang. “The Paths to Social Licence to Operate: An Integrative Model Explaining Community Acceptance of Mining.” Resources Policy 39 (March 2014): 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003.

Murray, Alan, Keith Skene, and Kathryn Haynes. “The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context.” Journal of Business Ethics 140, no. 3 (February 2017): 369–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2.

Nowlin, Matthew C. “Theories of the Policy Process: State of the Research and Emerging Trends”, Policy Studies Journal, 39, pp. 41-60; OECD (2012) Policy Framework for Policy Coherence for Development, Paris: OECD

Nunan, Fiona, Adrian Campbell, and Emma Foster. “Environmental Mainstreaming: The Organisational Challenges of Policy Integration: Environmental Mainstreaming.” Public Administration and Development 32, no. 3 (August 2012): 262–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1624.

Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart III Chapin, Eric Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, et al. “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology and Society 14, no. 2 (2009). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232.

Shinya, W. M. (1998). Canada’s new minerals and metals policy. Resources Policy, 24(2), 95–104.

Sicoli Posleman, C.I., Doctoral Thesis: Factores que determinan la Licencia Social para Operar en el Peru, (2016), [https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/98135/TCISP1de1.pdf;jsessionid=E7E5DBE0EB0FD2C4BF10FF4E9E96F362?sequence=1]

UNEP, Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. A report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel, (2011), [http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9816]

https://doi.org/10.1080/1387698042000305211

https://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf

https://futurechallenges.org/local/not-in-my-backyard-please/

https://futurechallenges.org/local/not-in-my-backyard-please/


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-015-2693-2

https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1624

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232



http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9816

http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9816

Find us on

www.min-guide.eu

MIN-GUIDE contactGerald Berger & Andreas Endl Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Managing SustainabilityWelthandelsplatz 1, A-1020 Vienna, AustriaPhone: +43-1-31336-0Email: [email protected]

MIN-GUIDE receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 689527

Addressing challenges of secure and sustainable minerals production in the EU requires a policy framework that boosts entrepreneurship and innovation across the mining value chain. This report brings together the final results of the MIN-GUIDE project on innovation-driving factors along the whole mining value chain (i.e. permitting, exploration, extraction, deep-sea mining, cross-border exploitation, processing, waste management, recycling, remediation, and mine closure), including recommendations on minerals policy governance and systematic reporting requirements for EU minerals data.

The authors identified key innovation challenges and industry innovation cases, outlined facilitating and inhibiting factors for innovation encountered in the cases, and recommended pathways for EU Member States’ minerals policy frameworks to address these factors. This final report also provides concrete sets of recommendations for policymakers and practitioners, whilst drawing parallels to potential connections with the EU Circular Economy Package.

© 2

018

MIN

-GUI

DE p

roje

ct

Policy and Innovation for Raw Materials and Minerals in Europe · Do you want to contribute to the...

Documents

Transcript of Policy and Innovation for Raw Materials and Minerals in Europe · Do you want to contribute to the...