Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at Work Directives 92/91/EEC (mineral extraction through drilling) and 92/104/EEC (surface and underground mineral extraction)
Date: 2009-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: mineral prospecting, mineral resources, mining operation, occupational health, occupational safety, territorial waters, underwater mineral resources

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 3.9.2009 
COM(2009) 449 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at Work Directives 92/91/EEC 
(mineral extraction through drilling) and 92/104/EEC (surface and underground 
mineral extraction) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the practical implementation of Health and Safety at Work Directives 92/91/EEC 
(mineral extraction through drilling) and 92/104/EEC (surface and underground 
mineral extraction) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  fulfils  a  Commission  undertaking1  to  assess  the  practical  implementation  of  the 
regulatory  framework  with  a  view  to  improving  it.  It  draws  mainly  on  the  national  reports 
supplied  by  the  Member  States2  and  an  independent  expert  report  evaluating  the  practical 
implementation  of  the  two  Directives  on  the  ground  in  the  private  and/or  public  economic 
sectors concerned. It also draws on European statistics and surveys of accidents at work and 
occupational  diseases3  and  on  information  from  the  Commission  on  the  transposition  of  the 
Directives. 

This  assessment  covers  the  transposition  and  implementation,  in  EU-15  only,  of  two 
Directives,  namely  Council  Directive  92/91/EEC  of  3  November  1992  concerning  the 
minimum  requirements  for  improving  the  safety  and  health  protection  of  workers  in  the 
mineral-extracting  industries  through  drilling4  and  Council  Directive  92/104/EEC  of  3 
December 1992 on the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection 
of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries5. The Commission is of 
the opinion that this assessment may also provide useful information on the application of the 
Directives for the 12 Member States that have meanwhile joined the EU. 

The extractive industries do not fall within the scope of Directive 89/654/EEC concerning the 
minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within 
the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). Workers in the sector are likely to be 
exposed to particularly high levels of risk, so there are separate specific provisions for them, 
in  two  individual  directives  (Directives  92/91/EEC  and  92/104/EEC)  within  the  meaning  of 
Article  16(1)  of  Directive  89/391/EEC  on  the  introduction  of  measures  to  encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

In the Communication Improving quality and productivity at work: Community strategy 2007-2012 on 
health and safety at work, COM(2007) 62 final of 21 February 2007. 
Sent  to  the  Commission  under  Articles  12  of  Directive  92/91/EEC  and  13  of  Directive  92/104/EEC. 
Those Articles were subsequently repealed by Directive 2007/30/EC. In almost all the Member States, 
the  social  partners  participated  in  the  preparation  of  the  reports.  Belgium  and  Luxembourg  did  not 
submit national reports. 
European Statistics of Accidents at Work (ESAW), data on recognised occupational diseases (EODS) 
and Labour Force Survey (LFS) by Eurostat. Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 on Community statistics 
on  public  health  and  health  and  safety  at  work  (OJ  L  354,  31.12.2008,  p.  70),  which  was  adopted 
recently,  provides  for  close  cooperation  between  Eurostat  and  the  relevant  national  bodies  for  the 
purposes of collecting and processing data in a harmonised manner throughout the EU. 
OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 9. 
OJ L 404, 31.12.1992, p. 10. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Directive 92/91/EEC applies specifically to the safety and health of workers in the extractive 
industries concerned with exploration for and exploitation of minerals by means of boreholes 
(onshore  and  offshore),  while  Directive  92/104/EEC  covers  the  remaining  sectors  of  the 
extractive  industries,  i.e.  exploration  for  and  exploitation  of  minerals  in  surface  or 
underground mines and quarries.  

In  accordance  with  Articles  1(2)  of  Directives  92/91/EEC  and  92/104/EEC,  Directive 
89/391/EEC applies in full to the areas covered by those two Directives. 

Since the two Directives are similar in many ways in terms of practical implementation, this 
report will mention them individually only where a specific aspect of one or other directive 
needs to be highlighted. 

2. 

LEGAL EFFECTS  

The  Member  States’  national  reports  show  that  the  Directives  have  had  an  impact  formally 
(streamlining and codification) in all Member States, which has led them to consolidate and 
update the existing legislation. 

As to substance: most Member States already had legislation in this field, but the Directives 
introduced  important  new  concepts  (such  as  the  safety  and  health  document)  into  national 
legislation. In one Member State, Ireland, the transposition of the Directives had the effect of 
making  infringements  of  the  legislation  in  this  area,  which  had  merely  been  infringements 
under private law, into infringements under penal law too. 

3. 

AWARENESS-RAISING AND FLANKING MEASURES 

The national measures transposing the Directives have been published in all Member States 
and awareness-raising campaigns have been organised, with activities such as the distribution 
of  booklets,  guidelines  and  press  releases  and  seminars  and  conferences  to  train  the 
authorities,  employers  and  workers  in  the  concepts  in  the  Directives.  In  some  cases  the 
companies concerned were given this information directly. 

For their part, the social partners spread information on the rules in the form of documentation 
(e.g.  guides  giving  examples  of  good  practice)  and  training  in  the  form  of  conferences  and 
seminars. 

Overall,  the  above-mentioned  information  campaigns  were  considered  satisfactory:  they 
fostered  a  greater  awareness  of  the  rules  and  helped  companies  to  develop  a  culture  of 
accident and occupational diseases prevention. 

4. 

TRANSPOSITION 

Despite  prior  in-depth  consultation  of  the  social  partners  on  each  of  the  two  Directives  and 
their unanimous adoption by the Council, about half of the Member States failed to meet the 
transposition  deadlines.  The  Commission  started  infringement  proceedings  against  those 
Member States under Article 226 EC, which in some cases led to judgments by the Court of 
Justice before transposition was completed. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
An analysis of the conformity of national legislation with the EC Directives seems to suggest 
that,  with  certain  exceptions,  the  Directives’  requirements  have  generally  been  transposed 
faithfully.  Some  shortcomings  were  found  as  regards  the  responsibility  of  employers  where 
workers  from  several  companies  are  present  (Articles  3(3)  of  the  Directives),  health 
surveillance (Articles 8 of the Directives), the derogation for mineral extraction by dredging 
(Article 12 of Directive 92/104/EEC), and certain points in the Annexes where the protection 
granted did not meet the required minimum laid down by the Directives. 

5. 

ACTION  IN  THE  FIELD:  IMPLEMENTING  THE  TWO  DIRECTIVES  IN 
PRACTICE 

Main aspects 

A wide range of companies, both large and small, and with very different characteristics, is 
active in the extractive industries. In the offshore drilling sector, for example, the companies 
are mainly large international firms, while there are many small, family-owned businesses in 
the  ornamental  stone-mining  and  quarrying  sectors.  Each  type  of  company  has  different 
features and the health and safety policy within each is adapted to its particular situation. 

Despite efforts to improve workers’ health and safety protection, the extractive industries are 
still a high-risk sector, both in terms of accidents at work and occupational diseases. 

According  to  a  study  referred  to  in  the  independent  expert  report6,  about  10 %  of  mining 
accidents (Directive 92/104/EEC) are caused by technical deficiencies, such as equipment that 
does  not  meet  the  standards,  while  the  remaining  90 %  stem  from  organisational 
shortcomings, such as unclear orders and workers’ mistakes in estimating dangers. 

The  assessment  of  the  situation  in  large  and  medium-sized  companies  in  the  extractive 
industries  in  general  shows  that  there  are  no  significant  differences  between  the  Member 
States or extractive industry sectors with regard to the main minimum safety requirements laid 
down in the Directives. Overall application seems satisfactory regarding the safety and health 
document, the responsibility of the coordinating employer, workers’ training and supervision, 
and emergency precautions. 

On the other hand, smaller companies tend to lack the financial resources and the knowledge 
needed for an effective health and safety policy. In spite of this, the national reports seem to 
suggest  that  the  Member  States  have  not  adopted  specific  rules  covering  the  specificities  of 
small and medium-sized companies (‘SMEs’), apart, for example, from the authorities’ efforts 
to  improve  and  streamline  certain  administrative  procedures  for  SMEs.  The  Member  States 
have  also  organised  specific  information  campaigns  for  SMEs.  In  one  Member  State 
(Portugal),  small  companies  that  perform  well  in  the  area  of  health  and  safety  at  work  pay 
lower social security and insurance contributions. 

Certain proactive prevention measures have proved effective in reducing accidents.  

6 

Gerhard  Czuck,  ‘Prevention 2000  Plus:  A successful  prevention  strategy  for  better  S &  H  at  work  in 
small  and  middle-sized  enterprises’,  at  ISSA/Chamber  of  Mines  conference  ‘Mines  and  Quarries: 
Prevention of Occupational Injury and Disease Conference’, Sandton Conference Centre, Republic of 
South Africa, 19-21 May 2003. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
These include training based on ‘near misses’ (i.e. incidents of dangerous working conditions 
that nearly produced an accident), at which the workers concerned tell their story, and on-site 
pictures  of  children  with  safety  messages  to  parents  working  in  the  extractive  industry.  In 
some cases the workers’ families are contacted by telephone to bring home the importance of 
health and safety measures at work. 

Companies active in extraction through drilling (Directive 92/91/EEC) are mainly large and 
medium-sized. The on-site evaluation showed that safety and health management in various 
companies operating in different Member States is fairly similar. As a rule they are aware of 
the specific risks in the sector and even competitors generally share information on health and 
safety issues. Daily health and safety management involves meetings, supervision and work 
permits, which are required for jobs that involve especially hazardous situations in line with 
the Directive7. 

Companies  involved  in  the  open-cast  mining  of  coal,  metal  ores  and  industrial  minerals 
(Directive 92/104/EEC) are mainly large and often use automated processes. They generally 
believe that health and safety measures can generate profits, and not only costs, and that the 
latter  are  generally  lower  than  the  costs  resulting  from  occupational  accidents  and  diseases. 
Such  companies  often  find  it  a  big  challenge  to  convince  their  workers  of  the  relevance  of 
health  and  safety  measures.  By  contrast,  companies  involved  in  ornamental  stone-quarrying 
are  mainly  SMEs:  these  are  often  family-owned  with  from  three  to  ten  workers,  they 
frequently  employ  manual  processes,  and  their  workers  are  more  directly  exposed  to  such 
risks  as  dust  and  falling  rocks.  SMEs  are  likely  to  consider  health  and  safety  measures  a 
bother  and  a  burden  and  tend  not  to  implement  the  requirements  of  the  Directive 
comprehensively. 

BOX: SMEs need more support for putting an effective health and safety policy in place. 
This  should  be  provided  by  the  Member  States,  to  effectively  address  the  specific 
features  of  the  companies  concerned.  The  Member  States  should  include  this  issue  in 
their  national  strategies  to  be  adopted  under  the  Community  strategy  on  health  and 
safety at work (2007-12). 

Workplace conditions 

Articles  3(1)(a)  of  the  two  Directives  require  employers  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to 
safeguard workers’ health and safety by ensuring that workplaces are designed, constructed, 
equipped, commissioned, operated and maintained in such a way that workers can perform the 
work  assigned  to  them  without  endangering  their  safety  and/or  health  and/or  those  of  other 
workers. 

Companies in the extractive industries generally appear to comply with those provisions as far 
as  accident  protection  is  concerned,  but  there  seem  to  be  differences  between  companies  in 
the  various  Member  States  as  regards  the  potential  adverse  long-term  health  effects.  The 
problems here may be related to incorrect working positions, old equipment, manual handling 
of  heavy  equipment  or  a  lack  of  proper  protection  against  unhealthy  environmental 
conditions, such as excessively high or low temperatures, humidity, noise, vibration or dust. 

7 

Part  A,  point  2.8, of  the Annex  to Directive 92/91/EEC.  Part  A, point 1.8, of  the Annex  to Directive 
92/104/EEC contains similar provisions. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some  of  these  problems  arise  because  upgrading  equipment  may  be  very  expensive  and/or 
may cause practical problems in some cases, or the workers involved may lack training. 

The picture seems fairly positive as regards extraction through drilling (Directive 92/91/EEC), 
where outdated equipment is frequently replaced by new equipment, mechanical processes are 
improving the situation in potentially dangerous workplaces, and measures are being taken to 
abate noise and reduce pollutants. 

Worker’s qualifications 

Articles  3(1)(c)  of  the  two  Directives  require  employers  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to 
ensure that work involving a special risk is entrusted to competent staff only and is carried out 
in line with the instructions given. 

According  to  the  on-site  evaluation,  companies  usually  have  rules  on  the  qualifications 
needed to perform special tasks. 

For  extraction  through  drilling  (Directive  92/91/EEC),  there  are  regulations  in  the  offshore 
sector requiring workers to possess training certificates where they have to perform specific 
work  or  emergency  tasks.  Several  Member  States  and  companies  around  the  North  Sea  are 
working to reach agreement on training requirements, which will facilitate the free movement 
of workers. 

BOX:  National  authorities  and  social  partners  in  the  extractive  industries  are 
encouraged  to  step  up  their  efforts  to  reach  an  agreement  on  training  requirements 
applicable  to  workers  throughout  the  EU,  depending  on  the  scale  and/or  type  of  risk. 
Assistance could come from the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work and 
its Standing Working Party for the Mining and Other Extractive Industries. 

Safety and health document 

In accordance with Articles 3(2) of the Directives, which are worded similarly, employers are 
to ensure that a safety and health document (‘SHD’) is drawn up and kept up to date, and that 
it demonstrates in particular that: (i) the risks to which workers and the workplace have been 
exposed have been determined and assessed; (ii) adequate measures have been taken to attain 
the aims of the Directive; and (iii) the design, use and maintenance of the workplace and of 
the equipment are safe. 

It  was  found  that  both  large  companies  and  SMEs  generally  draw  up  an  SHD.  Not  all 
companies devote the same attention to it, however, and there are considerable differences in 
the length and content of SHDs Furthermore, very small companies do not appear to update 
their SHDs regularly. Generally, SHDs appear to cover everyone in the company, including 
subcontractors and self-employed persons. 

The  benefits  of  SHDs  are  generally  recognised  and  the  risk  assessments  make  for  better 
prevention  of  occupational  accidents  and  illnesses.  The  workers  concerned  often  initiate 
updating of the SHD, for example by means of worksheets in which they note the risks they 
encounter.  SHDs  may  need  to  be  updated  following  accident  investigations,  reports  and  in-
depth analyses of near misses, and discussions with the workers, during which they can put 
forward ideas to improve the situation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Some enforcement bodies are engaged in efforts to harmonise SHDs, for instance through a 
standard template. Under Directive 92/91/EEC (extraction through drilling), for example, the 
drilling contractors in the North Sea area have drawn up a common template for an SHD in 
consultation  with  the  enforcement  bodies  in  the  countries  concerned8.  This  will  obviate  the 
need  to  draw  up  new  documents,  for  example,  where  a  drilling  platform  is  moved  across  a 
border to carry out similar tasks (unless there is a change in working conditions), which will 
make things easier for both the companies and the enforcement bodies involved. 

Workers’ representatives can play an important role in a company’s safety and health policy. 
The on-site evaluation found that workers or workers’ representatives are generally consulted 
on the SHD, albeit not always and not to the same degree. The evaluation also showed that 
workers’  representatives  were  somewhat  reluctant  in  some  cases  to  use  their  influence.  The 
evaluation also suggests that this may be due to a lack of training or experience regarding the 
company’s overall health and safety policy: some workers’ representatives may specialise in 
solving practical problems, such as wage levels, working time and job security, and have less 
experience in terms of introducing a prevention culture in a company. 

BOX: To help the drawing up of effective safety and health documents and establish a 
prevention culture in companies, more practical information, especially in SMEs, and a 
greater  awareness  of  the  importance  of  SHDs  among  workers'  representatives,  are 
needed. 

Subcontractors and self-employed persons 

Articles  3(3)  of  the  two  Directives,  which  are  identical,  provide  that  where  workers  from 
several  companies  are  present  at  the  same  workplace,  each  employer  is  responsible  for  all 
matters  under  his  control.  In  addition,  the  employer  in  charge  of  the  workplace  is  to 
coordinate  all  measures  regarding  workers’  health  and  safety  and  to  set  them  down  in  the 
SHD. 

The evaluation showed that subcontracting is on the increase and coordination of work is not 
always  satisfactory.  Nevertheless,  companies  employing  subcontractors  usually  check  their 
experience and understanding of safety and health requirements. The general contractor may 
also provide compulsory safety training, updated at regular intervals. 

Problems  occasionally  appear  to  arise  because  workers  hired  by  subcontractors,  usually  for 
temporary  or  seasonal  work,  lack  training,  which  could  explain  the  higher  number  of 
occupational  accidents  involving  them.  There  seem,  however,  to  be  fewer  problems  with 
subcontracting in this area than in other high-risk sectors, such as the construction industry. 

BOX:  Given  the  problems  arising  with  subcontracting  in  the  extractive  industries  and 
other sectors and as announced in the Community strategy for 2007-12, the Commission 
will look at the specific problems  of  subcontracting.  Good  practice  in  this  sector could 
benefit  other  sectors  too,  and  could  be  promoted  through  the  Advisory  Committee  on 
Safety  and  Health  at  Work,  its  Standing  Working  Party  for  the  Mining  and  Other 
Extractive  Industries  and  the  Social  Sectoral  Dialogue  Committee  on  Extractive 
Industries at EU Level. 

Fire-fighting and rescue 

8 

Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Articles  4  and  5  of  the  two  Directives,  which  are  identical,  lay  down  specific  minimum 
requirements  on  protection  from  fire,  explosions  and  health-endangering  atmospheres,  and 
escape and rescue facilities. 

Those  requirements  generally  appear  to  be  met  in  practice,  thanks  to  the  installation  of  fire 
extinguishers  and  the  organisation  of  fire-extinguishing  drills  and  special  fire  and/or  rescue 
teams. Occasionally, friction detectors are installed on belt conveyors to prevent overheating. 

Stand-by  transport  (ambulances  and  helicopter)  is  often  provided  for  rescues,  in  addition  to 
muster  points  and  emergency  refuge  chambers.  Experience  has  shown  the  importance  of 
escape  and  rescue  facilities,  including  for  rescue  teams,  who  often  have  to  operate  under 
extremely dangerous conditions, e.g. just after an explosion. 

Health surveillance 

Articles 8 of the Directives require health surveillance to be provided for workers before they 
are  assigned  to  duties  in  the  extractive  industries  and  at  regular  intervals  subsequently.  The 
Directives also note that such measures are to be introduced in accordance with national law 
and/or practices. 

Health  surveillance  of  workers  is  generally  performed  as  required  by  the  Directives.  It  is 
mostly carried out by occupational health doctors rather than general practitioners, and may 
extend  to  subjects  other  than  occupational  health  issues  strictly  speaking,  such  as  anti-
smoking campaigns and dietary advice. In some Member States there is provision for follow-
up for retired workers (for example, for ex-coalminers at five-yearly intervals). 

Enforcement 

In most Member States, the enforcement of national legislation transposing the Directives is 
the responsibility of the labour inspectorates. However, labour inspectorates in some Member 
States do  not  deal with the extractive industries: instead,  special bodies have been set up to 
oversee the sector, often because of its relative importance for the economy and the specific 
risks  arising.  Enforcement  authorities  responsible  for  surveillance  of  workers’  health  and 
safety could perhaps usefully coordinate their activities and exchange information, including 
know-how,  because  the  various  departments  may  each  be  dealing  with  different  sections  of 
the  health  and  safety  acquis  and  may  not  have  an  overall  picture.  For  instance,  the  labour 
inspectorate  may  be  enforcing  the  Framework  Directive  89/391/EEC,  while  the  mining 
inspectorate enforces Directives 92/91/EEC and 92/104/EEC. 

Larger  companies  often  have  the  financial  and  organisational  resources  needed  to  put  an 
effective  health  and  safety  policy  in  place  and  are  usually  in  regular  contact  with  the 
enforcement authorities. 

BOX:  There  may  be  several  enforcement  authorities  dealing  with  enforcement  of  the 
legislation  applicable  to  the  extractive  industries  in  the  Member  States.  Mutual 
cooperation  and  information  exchange  between  these  bodies  in  each  Member  State 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
should  be  improved  so  that  all  aspects  of  health  and  safety  policy  are  covered 
comprehensively. The Senior Labour Inspectors Committee9 could help in this regard. 

6. 

GENERAL ASSESSMENT 

6.1. 

The two Directives’ main positive effects  

In  their  national  reports  the  Member  States  stressed  the  two  Directives’  positive  effect  in 
making companies more aware of the issue of health and safety at work, particularly through 
the risk assessment and the SHD, which has encouraged companies to give priority to health 
and safety and preventive policies. The measures provided for in the Directives were felt to be 
sufficiently exhaustive and general to deal flexibly with the risks occurring in the companies 
concerned.  Another  advantage  noted  was  that  the  EU-wide  minimum  requirements  averted 
competition  between  companies  on  health  and  safety  standards,  since  they  all  had  to  apply 
them. 

One important effect of the Directives was the shift towards an overall policy of occupational 
health  and  safety  in  companies.  The  provisions  on  the  coordination  of  health  and  safety 
measures at sites where workers from several companies are present were also regarded as an 
important positive innovation brought about by the Directives. 

Health and safety conditions in SMEs working in small quarries in particular appear to have 
improved to some extent thanks to Directive 92/104/EEC (on mining); companies of this type 
do not appear to have been concerned about the issue prior to the adoption of the Directive. 

6.2.  Main problems in implementation 

As mentioned above, the flexibility allowed by the two Directives was praised overall, though 
it may mean that companies find it difficult to determine the precise standard of worker safety 
and health protection required and to apply the Directives’ provisions in practice. In addition, 
the report points out that the latitude granted to the Member States by Directive 92/91/EEC 
may lead to differences in implementation in the Member States, which may in turn lead to 
situations where some conditions may be accepted in one Member State but not in another. 

The  employers  mention  that  in  some  cases  the  SHD  duplicates  the  documents  required,  for 
example,  for  mining  permits.  This  problem  may  be  linked  with  the  implementation  of  the 
Directives  in  the  Member  States,  and  could  possibly  be  resolved  by  combining  the  various 
documents  required  for  different  operations  in  the  extractive  industries,  provided  that  they 
comply fully with the requirements of the SHD. 

BOX:  To  reduce  red  tape,  the  Member  States  could  consider  combining  the  SHD  and 
other documents required for various operations in the extractive industries in order to 
avoid the need for companies to produce several separate documents of a similar nature. 

SMEs apparently tend to view the implementation of the Directives’ requirements solely as a 
burden. They are likely to focus on the costs of accident insurance and preventive measures, 

9 

Commission  Decision  of  12  July  1995  setting up  a  Senior  Labour  Inspectors’  Committee  (OJ  L  188, 
9.8.1995, p. 11). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
and tend to overlook hidden future costs which could well be higher, such as those stemming 
from  loss  of  production  and  the  cost  of  materials  and  reorganisation  required  as  a  result  of 
occupational accidents and diseases. 

The national reports and the on-site evaluation reveal a tendency among employers in some 
Member States to avoid reporting all accidents that should be reported. They may avoid doing 
so for reasons connected with the company’s image or to avoid contractual fines. This means 
the authorities will not have an accurate picture of the situation in the sector concerned and 
will  therefore  not  be  able  to  ensure  that  worker  protection  is  improved.  Failures  to  report 
accidents  are  a  problem  that  needs  to  be  addressed  in  connection  with  improving  the  way 
enforcement authorities operate. 

National reports also show that employers may avoid modernising equipment because of the 
cost,  and  the  on-site  evaluation  found  that  some  employers  tend  to  give  environmental 
concerns priority over worker health and safety. 

Enforcement bodies frequently appear to apply the same approach to SMEs as to larger firms, 
disregarding smaller companies’ often limited resources and specificities. In the event of an 
accident,  the  potential  damage  to  a  large  company’s  public  image  has  a  greater  dissuasive 
effect  than  a  fine.  According  to  some  employers,  enforcement  bodies  concentrate  overly  on 
the  safety  of  the  equipment  and  not  enough  on  training  workers  (organisational  aspects, 
training, and promotion of a safety culture). 

Workers  are  generally  consulted  at  certain  stages  in  the  preparation  and/or  use  of  the  SHD, 
but  to  varying  degrees  and  not  systematically.  The  Directives  make  worker  consultation  a 
requirement, but it rarely seems to be fully met. 

7. 

ASSESSING THE LEGISLATION’S EFFECTIVENESS  

It  is  difficult  to  prove  the  existence  of  an  objective  link  between  the  Directives’ 
implementation in the extractive industries and improvements in terms  of  accidents at work 
and  occupational  disease.  Any  attempt  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that  accidents  and 
occupational diseases occur as a result of many factors other than those covered by the rules 
laid down in the Directives.  

There is also the fact that occupational  diseases are often diagnosed long after the worker’s 
exposure  to  the  risk  factor,  and  the  Directives  contain  some  new  provisions,  while  other 
provisions  are  grafted  onto  existing  national  regulations.  Measuring  the  impact  of  the 
Directives is therefore not easy. 

As  mentioned  above,  despite  the  efforts  made  the  extractive  industries  are  still  a  high-risk 
sector. 

(a) 

Effects on accidents at work and occupational diseases 

The  extractive  industries  involve  major  risks  in  terms  of  accidents  at  work.  The  incidence 
rate10 of accidents at work in the sector is considerably higher than the average for all sectors 

10 

The  incidence rate  defined  by  the  European  Statistics  of Accidents  at Work  (ESAW)  methodology is 
the number of accidents at work per 100 000 workers in employment. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  activity:  in  terms  of  accidents  entailing  more  than  three  days’  absence  it  is  more  than 
double (5 500 compared to 2 500), and it is almost five times as high (14 compared to 3) in 
terms  of  fatal  accidents11.  Interestingly,  according  to  estimates  in  198612,  the  incidence  rate 
for  fatal  accidents  was  considerably  higher  in  1986  (100  compared  to  14  in  2005),  so 
accidents  seem  to  have  fallen  sharply  from  1986  to  2005,  the  period  during  which  the 
Directives came into force. 

The statistics13 show that the fall or collapse of a material agent (for example, the collapse of 
an underground tunnel) is the biggest cause of accidents, including fatal accidents, at 25 % of 
the total,  while such  events as fires and  explosions account  —  unexpectedly  perhaps  — for 
smaller percentages (i.e. under 5 %). But those figures relate to the very last event deviating 
from  normality  and  leading  directly  to  the  accident:  that  last  event  may  in  turn  have  been 
triggered  by  other  events,  such  as  a  fire  or  explosion  in  a  mine  that  caused  a  tunnel  to 
collapse. In that case, only the collapse of the tunnel will be recorded as the last event, but the 
fire or explosion may well have been the original cause. 

BOX:  The  Standing  Working  Party  for  the  Mining  and  Other  Extractive  Industries 
should  work  closely  with  the  Social  Sectoral  Dialogue  Committee  on  Extractive 
Industries at EU level on accidents and their causes. 

Of all sectors of activity, the extractive industries sector had by far the highest incidence rate 
for occupational diseases, even compared with other high-risk sectors: this stood at 1 949 as 
against 134 for construction, 41 for agriculture and 29 for transport. Furthermore, the sector’s 
incidence rate for respiratory diseases is the highest of all sectors of activity14. 

Since  the  Directives  have  been  adopted,  companies  have  become  more  aware  of  health  and 
safety at work aspects, they are better organised in this field and the degree of mechanisation 
is higher, all of which should bring fewer accidents and occupational illnesses. Accident and 
occupational disease levels are still high, however, often as a result of several factors: 

–  compared  with  larger  companies,  SMEs,  which  seem  to  make  up  the  majority  of 

companies in this sector, have higher rates of accidents;  

–  employers in smaller companies often have less knowledge of health and safety at work;  

–  the pace of work has become faster;  

–  employers  sometimes  focus  on  productivity  or  the  environment  rather  than  on  worker 

protection;  

–  in some Member States, the numbers of young  and/or  immigrant  workers  are  rising,  and 

the latter often have language problems. 

11 

12 

13 
14 

Source:  DG  EMPL  and  Eurostat  "Causes  and  circumstances  of  accidents  at  work  in  the  EU",  Figure 
1.11, p. 25; Eurostat ESAW and Labour Force Survey (LFS) 2005 data. 
Source:  P.A.  Walker,  ‘Mining  and  quarrying  in  the  European  Economic  Community,  the  safety  and 
health aspects’, in Safety and health in mining and quarrying industries: Proceedings of a symposium 
held in Luxembourg 10 to 12 September 1986, 1988, pp. 7-8. 
Source: Eurostat ESAW Phase III 2005 data. 
Source: Eurostat EODS 2005. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(b) 

Impact on productivity, employment and competitiveness 

Most  Member  States  have  provided  no  information  on  the  impact  of  the  Directives  on 
productivity,  employment  and  competitiveness.  Some  Member  States15  consider  that  the 
measures in the Directives have fostered productivity and competitiveness. 

The national reports point out that implementing the Directives encourages improvements in 
the  working  environment,  which  makes  the  work  more  attractive  to  workers  and  increases 
productivity. Lower accident rates reduce absenteeism, which constitutes a significant loss for 
the economy, in addition to the human suffering caused. 

8. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS 

Since  the  Directives  are  drafted  in  general  terms,  it  has  been  suggested  that  practical 
guidelines,  best  practice  or  other  information  could  be  developed  and  disseminated  to  spell 
out the obligations under the Directives. 

As regards the SHD, the evaluation points to a need for templates for specific, primarily small 
industries,  such  as  ornamental  stone  quarries.  This  will  help  improve  safety  and  health 
conditions, since it will make it easier for companies to prepare the SHD and will help them 
find ways of assessing and introducing improvements needed. 

In  terms  of  enforcement,  specialist  staff  in  inspection  bodies  could  make  it  easier  to 
communicate  with  the  companies  concerned:  suggestions  could  be  more  convincing  and 
companies  could  be  more  inclined  to  implement  them.  This  may  also  be  important  for 
industries facing complex operational challenges. Furthermore, inspectorates often appear to 
be  understaffed,  so  inspecting  every  company  once  a  year,  for  example,  is  not  feasible. 
Companies mention that inspectorates often focus on finding shortcomings and do not offer 
suggestions  on  how  to  improve  the  situation,  even  though  there  is  a  need  for  practical 
suggestions, given the general terms in which the Directives are drafted. Nevertheless it has 
emerged  that  inspectorates  are  developing  new  enforcement  techniques  for  Directive 
92/91/EEC, with audits on specific topics such as working hours and rescue operations. 

There  are  problems  related  to  moving  workplaces  across  borders,  because  of  differences  in 
the  way  the  Directives  are  implemented  in  different  Member  States.  Here  the  Commission 
intends  to  pursue  its  efforts  to  monitor  conformity  of  transposing  legislation  and  initiate 
infringement  proceedings,  where  needed,  to  correct  non-compliance  of  national  provisions 
with  the  EC  Directives.  However,  the  Directives  lay  down  minimum  requirements  and  the 
Member States may adopt or maintain stricter measures16. 

There  have  also  been  suggestions  for  further  harmonisation  in  this  sector  across  the  EU, 
which  would  stimulate  the  introduction  of  a  level  playing  field  and  facilitate  cross-border 
movements of people and equipment. Another suggestion is to reduce administrative burdens 
on  companies  due  to  the  way  the  Directives  are  implemented  or  enforced  in  the  Member 
States. As part of an ongoing action programme presented by the Commission to reduce the 

15 
16 

Greece and Portugal. 
Article 1(3) of the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC. See also the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case 
C-84/94 UK v Council [1996] ECR I-5755, paragraph 17. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
administrative burdens on business17, the Member States are requested to reduce such burdens 
on companies and set ambitious targets for this. 

As  regards  possible  amendments  to  Directive  92/104/EEC  (on  mining),  the  following  have 
been suggested: 

–  separating  out  coal-mining  from  the  extracting  and  mining  of  other  minerals,  because  of 
the  specific  problems  in  these  two  sectors.  Another  suggestion  was  to  provide  practical 
guidance  specifically  covering  each  type  of  mining  operation  instead  of  amending  the 
Directive; 

–  including more detailed provisions on protecting operators of equipment from the risk of 
undetonated  explosives  and  those  hidden  in  rock  piles  to  be  removed,  the  temporary 
installation of safe havens or safety chambers in tunnels where preparatory or development 
works  take  place  until  permanent  escape  routes  are  installed,  and  the  fitting  of  fire-
extinguishers and self-rescuers to vehicles. 

As these practical suggestions are technical in nature, they will be discussed with the Standing 
Working Party for the Mining and Other Extractive Industries  with  a view to  assessing any 
need for technical adaptation of the Directive (Article 11 of Directive 92/104/EEC). 

9. 

CONCLUSIONS 

While the two Directives’ implementation in the 15 Member States concerned appears to be 
relatively satisfactory and accident rates in the extractive industries sector are down, numbers 
of accidents and cases of occupational disease occurring are unacceptably high and workers 
still run great risks in this sector. 

To improve the situation, the Community strategy for 2007-12 encourages the Member States 
to adopt national strategies establishing quantitative objectives for reducing the incidence of 
occupational  accidents  and  illnesses,  to  target  sectors  and  companies  with  the  worst  track 
records, such as the extractive industry sector, and to focus on the most common risks and the 
most vulnerable workers. 

As in other sectors, there seems to be a clear division between types of companies: the larger 
companies, especially in the drilling sector, perform relatively well, while SMEs, especially in 
the  ornamental  stone-quarrying  sector,  seem  less  well-equipped  to  put  in  place  an  effective 
health and safety policy. 

Companies  clearly  need  to  put  health  and  safety  higher  up  their  agendas.  Apart  from  the 
social/ethical considerations, there are important financial reasons why companies should put 
in  place  a  policy  for  the  prevention  of  accidents  and  occupational  diseases.  A  proper 
prevention  policy  will  bring  clear  financial  benefits:  companies  should  be  made  aware  that 
they need to consider not only the cost of insurance premiums and prevention measures but 
also the more indirect costs of accidents and occupational diseases (such as costs relating to 
the worker’s replacement, loss of production and damage caused by a negative public image), 
which  are  likely  to  be  far  higher.  When  viewed  from  such  a  pragmatic  perspective, 
investments  in  preventive  measures  will  seem  rather  small  and  companies  may  be  more 

17 

COM(2007) 23. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
inclined  to  make  them.  The  Member  States  need  to  be  more  active  in  raising  companies’ 
awareness of such considerations. 

Health and safety knowledge needs to be more evenly spread among companies of different 
type and size. This could be a task for the Member States, which could tackle it by drawing up 
guidelines  and  assisting  and  training  smaller  companies,  in  particular,  to  apply  an  effective 
health  and  safety  policy.  To  make  progress  in  this  area,  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Safety 
and  Health  at  Work  and  its  specific  Standing  Working  Party  for  the  Mining  and  Other 
Extractive  Industries18  could  address  the  particular  issue  of  training.  As  the  Community 
strategy  for  2007-12  states,  the  Commission  will  look  at  the  specific  problems  relating  to 
subcontracting  in  greater  depth.  Experience  with  subcontracting  in  this  sector  could  be 
exported  to  other  sectors.  In  this  connection,  the  role  of  people  and  their  limits  in  an 
environment increasingly dominated by advanced technology should be borne in mind. 

The Commission is of the opinion that this report, which is based on information from EU-15, 
also contains useful suggestions for the 12 Member States that have meanwhile joined the EU. 
Recent mining accidents demonstrate the need for further improvements in the situation. 

One  conclusion  that  may  be  drawn  from  this  assessment  is  the  importance  of  the  role  of 
workers’ representatives and the need to share best practice. The European Agency for Safety 
and  Health  at  Work  in  Bilbao  could  assist  in  disseminating  specific,  targeted  information, 
especially to the Member States that have joined the EU more recently. 

Meanwhile,  several  Member  States  stress  that  amending  the  Directives  is  not  necessary  for 
the moment, probably because of the general wording of the Directives, which allows them to 
apply to a wide range of situations. In the light of the information presented in this report, the 
Commission agrees that there is currently no need to amend the Directives. 

The Commission calls on the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work through its 
Standing Working Party for the Mining and Other Extractive Industries to draw conclusions 
from this evaluation. 

18 

Article  6(4)  of  Council  Decision  of  22  July  2003  setting  up  an  Advisory  Committee  on  Safety  and 
Health at Work, OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1. 

EN 

14 

   EN