Mr President, before I go into detail on this proposal and Parliament’s suggested changes and improvements, I should like to recapitulate on the background to this Directive. It was prompted by the serious environmental disasters in Spain and Romania that the Commissioner also mentioned. We should be aware that the problem of collapsing mine dams is something that recurs almost yearly in different parts of the world, including in the EU. At the same time, it can be said that an environmental disaster is lurking, in the form of the leakage into the environment of old mining waste, about which we often know very little, chiefly heavy metals. All things considered, this could be said to constitute a considerably greater environmental problem than the mining currently in operation. At the same time, EU legislation in this field has been inefficient, as the existing directives on waste, some of which currently apply to mining waste, are ineffective and ill-suited to this type of industrial production. This makes it perfectly clear that a new directive is needed in this field. Hence, we should like to thank the Commission for its proposal. This has many good points, for example regarding the safety of ponds and the effective prohibition of the method involving a high cyanide content, which had been used in Romania. This Directive will make that method inadmissible in future. As a Member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and as rapporteur, I should also like to see further improvements. Firstly, it is important that this cover all relevant types of waste. For that reason, we have chosen to remove a number of exemptions, for example concerning waste from prospecting. I also think that it is important that it cover waste that is removed from the nearest production site. I am especially grateful that we have been able to agree on a definition that I think works well, because the definitions issue was rather complicated in this case. There is now agreement on this within the political groups. I should also like to mention inert non-hazardous waste. It is important to realise that even waste that is not intrinsically or chemically hazardous can cause major environmental problems. This can happen if it is incorrectly stored, if it is allowed to contaminate water resources, or in the case of soil acidification. It is important that this waste, too, be covered by rules requiring that it be restored and managed properly. I do not think that the decision taken by the Committee on the Environment goes far enough in this regard, and have therefore tabled Amendment No 98, which would put this right, in my view. One of the key points in this report concerns historical waste, which is perhaps the greatest environmental problem of all. It is not sufficient to just make an inventory. We must also ensure that we really do address this issue, otherwise we are only going halfway towards tackling environmental problems. In my opinion, it is important to include this in the suggestions made in the report, so that we are also able to use Structural Funds to really address this. This will represent an opportunity for the new Member States, in particular, to address these quite significant environmental problems. I also think that this should be seen as an opportunity for new technology and for that research and development currently taking place in the EU that to some extent already leads the world in this field and, above all, can do so in the future. On the subject of financial guarantees from companies, too, we opted for a compromise among the political groups even before first reading. This involved our allowing Member States considerable freedom to give shape to these financial guarantees. This is a good thing, as many countries already have effective systems in place. At the same time, Commission approval will be required so that the guarantees meet requirements, which is only reasonable. Regarding technical solutions to the various provisions of the proposal, my aim as rapporteur was that we avoid going into technical detail and shackling these proposals to various technical solutions: that would hinder adaptation to technological developments. I believe that we have indeed achieved this result. Another point that I should like to mention is that, from a global perspective, a large proportion of the least responsible mining takes place in the very poorest countries. We have inserted into the report words to the effect that, where EU funding is granted for mining projects, for instance from the European Investment Bank, compliance with the requirements laid down in the Directive will be a prerequisite for this aid. Another point that I have chosen to emphasise concerns the monitoring of dams. Despite construction requirements, there are often shortcomings in that dams are not adapted later, nor are they monitored as required if the production conditions change. We have also seen this in these accidents. Another important point is that we want planning to take place right at the beginning, before the closure phase. Taken as a whole, I think that the Committee on the Environment’s draft strengthens the Commission’s work significantly, whilst still being fully in line with it. I hope that these proposals will enable us to address the fundamental problems that I mentioned at the beginning: preventing major dam collapses, making leakage of pollutants into the environment a thing of the past, and establishing legislation in this field that is effective in practice and comprehensive. The framework for doing so is now in place. I should like to take a couple of seconds to thank the shadow rapporteurs and the representatives of the Commission for their constructive cooperation.

Political group: GUE-NGL