Estonia Mineral Strategy Prof. Dr. Günter Tiess, Dr. Diego Murguia Dr. Angelika Brechelmacher. Tallin, May 2017

Transcription

1 MINLEX - Study on the legal framework for mineral extraction and permitting procedures for exploration and exploitation in the EU Focus on Estonia Results Prof. Dr. Günter Tiess, Dr. Diego Murguia Dr. Angelika Brechelmacher Estonia Mineral Strategy 2017 Tallin, May 2017

2 Contents Key figures Project Objectives WP Structure / Methodology Key Findings Estonia Some study conclusions 2

3 Key Figures Project Acronym: Project full title: MINLEX Study on the legal framework for mineral extraction and permitting procedures for exploration and exploitation in the EU Start Date: 01 December 2015 End Date: 15 May 2017 Duration: 17 months Project Cost/Funding: 250,000 Coverage: Status in the value chain: non-energy minerals, on-shore/off-shore Exploration, Extraction, to a minor extent post-extraction 3

4 Project Objectives Commissioned and funded by DG for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs of the European Commission (EC) Main objective: to identify / describe the legal framework and the permitting procedures governing the mineral extraction in the EU28 Member States. Mapping the competent entities, relevant legislation, Comparing exploration and extraction permitting procedures in the MSs Surveys court cases, estimation of permitting success rates. 4

5 Project methodology Main sources of information: EU Directives and Regulations Court cases (ECJ and at MS level) Official and inofficial statistics at MS level Structured Questionnaires Literature Key source of information: 28 Country Experts + Reviewers managed centrally by MinPol information will be under open access and available Arrows represent information flows Integration into the EC s (JRC) RMIS v

6 Key Findings Focus: Estonia 6

7 Key Findings (1) Legal Framework & Permitting regime o Widely varying number of laws o Spain and Croatia reported the highest number of relevant laws (112 and 110 resp.), o average (40). Estonia reported 22 applicable laws. o Majority of mixed permitting regimes (onshore minerals): 12 MS o followed by centralised ones (11, including Estonia). o Only five MSs have decentralised regimes. 7

8 Key Findings (2) Coordination of authorities o One-stop shop service lower real time frames, higher efficience; o Multiple-authorization permitting regimes longer real time frames, higher uncertainty; o 3 to 7 years vs. (on average) 11 months to receive a mining permit. o Average length: 7.5 months if no EIA proceedings are initiated; o 9 jurisdictions have one-stop shops, including Estonia. 8

9 Key Findings (3) Mineral ownership & permits issuing o o o o High-value minerals state-owned / low-value minerals land-owned (9 MSs) State is the owner of all mineral resources (8 MSs) Mineral resources (onshore) belong to the landowner (6 MSs) Low-value minerals belong to the landowner, others free for any operator (5 MSs) Key Findings (4) Number of authorities Number of co-authorities is smaller for exploration than for extraction permits, on average of 3.03 co-authorities for onshore exploration permitting / 4.02 for onshore extraction 9

10 Key Findings (5) Permitting issues o o o In Estonia it was reported that lack of (qualified) staff in some authorities involved as well as prioritising tasks may also cause delays. According to the Estonian country expert, setting statutory deadlines for all permitting procedures would be useful to increase pressure on authorities to both allocate sufficient resources as well as to better prioritise the permitting tasks. It was reported in Estonia that some delays are also caused by low priority given to permit proceedings by the permitting authorities and the insufficiency of resources allocated. This can be solved by setting clear deadlines for completing the procedures (planned for the draft of the new Earth s Crust Act), allocating necessary resources to comply with them. 10

11 Key Findings (6) Exploration & Extraction Permitting Success Rates Permitting success rates are higher for exploration than for extraction permits. 11

12 Key Findings (7) Exploration & Extraction Permitting Success Rates Most MSs have high rates, well above the average rate (75 %) Flanders, DK, CZ, FI, IT, NL very high rates PT 32 %, ES 10 % FR mines 0 % Estonia 86% & 89%

13 Some study conclusions (1) o The analysis of the EU legislation shows that the TFEU, relevant conventions, and the EU Internal Market, Environmental, Nature Conservation, Water, Emissions, Chemical Safety, Extractive Waste and Occupational Health & Safety Directives provide an adequate legal framework for the NEEI sector and establish principles and guarantees aligned with globally accepted mineral investment criteria. o This legal framework combined with the EU s Raw Materials Strategy framework (RMI, EIP-RM), provide a strong basis for achieving a sustainable supply of minerals from European sources and sets the right conditions for the MSs to streamline their NEEI permitting procedures. 13

14 Some study conclusions (2) o Nevertheless, our analysis has identified implementation issues in some MSs which act against a level playing field in the EU s internal market. o Land use planning still needs to be integrated o Preventing cases from reaching judicial instances appears as the best way to avoid delays, unpredictable outcomes and high costs during permitting procedures. 14

15 Thank you for your attention! MinPol - Agency for International Minerals Policy Dreistetten, Dr Angelika Brechelmacher projects@minpol.com 15

16 Backup slides

17 Project Partners in the EU28 Finnish Jurists 1 Country Expert per Member State (and 1 Reviewer) Including mostly experts from Geological Surveys, Associations & Mining Chambers Swedish Jurists Polish Jurist MinPol Project Coordinator + WP Leader IGME Spanish Geological Survey WP Leader Hungarian Jurists + WP Leader Spanish Jurists 17