Groups blast veiled decision-making at European Commission as mining industry revels in rejection of crucial Parliamentary resolution

Environmental organisations have today criticised Commissioner Janez Potocnik for heeding mining industry lobbyists over a democratically elected European Parliament, in failing to open public discussions and rejecting a resolution to ban the use of cyanide in mining processes throughout the European Union.

The resolution, put forward by Parliament in May and one of the strongest resolutions on environmental questions ever passed, calls “on the Commission to propose a complete ban on the use of cyanide mining technologies in the European Union before the end of 2011, since this is the only safe way to protect our water resources and ecosystems against cyanide pollution from mining activities.” [1]

Yet while repeated attempts by civil society groups to be involved in consultations on implementing the ban were stonewalled by the Commission [2], mining industry sources have boastfully circulated news about their active involvement in having the resolution shot down via the European Association of Mining Industries, an industry lobby committee formed to advise the Commission. [3]

“Is this the same EU that encourages citizens participation and active public engagement?” asks Maria Kadoglou from Hellenic Mining Watch in Brussels. “Its a bad start for the new Environment Commission if Mr. Potocnik is disregarding one of the strongest and most necessary environmental resolutions from the democratically-elected representatives of EU citizens.”

CEE Bankwatch Network campaigner Daniel Popov from Bulgaria added, While the Commission is convinced that the existing Mining Waste Directive is strong enough to ensure environmental and health safety from cyanide accidents and active participation of citizens in decision-making processes, the experience from Bulgaria doesnt support these claims. Environmental permits for leaching gold with cyanide are given without adequate public consultations, without proposals to use best available technologies, and without adequate emergency response plans. [4]

“It is appalling that the Commission took into account only one point of view – that of the mining industry lobby – and that there was no space for the arguments of Europeans whose health and environment are being destroyed and threatened by cyanide pollution. How can Mr. Potocnik accept mining companies as the best advisers on environment and health issues?” said Katerina Ventusova from Greenpeace in Slovakia.

“We demand that the European Commission opens its ears to the arguments of all interested parties and immediately starts a transparent and inclusive process of consultation on the implementation of this resolution.”

For more information

Daniel Popov
CEE Bankwatch Network/Center for Environmental Education and Information, Sofia
Tel: + 359 886 818 794

Maria Kadoglou
Hellenic Mining Watch, Brussels
Tel: +30 697 4371 552

Katerina Ventusova
Greenpeace Slovakia
Tel: + 421 905 921 918

Notes for editors

1. ‘The European Parliament resolution of 5 May 2010 on a general ban on the use of cyanide mining technologies in the European Union’ was passed with 488 votes supporting the ban compared to 48 against. It is available online.

2. Environmental organisations first sent a letter to Mr. Potocnik on May 21, asking for a transparent and inclusive process of consultations. No reply has been seen and recent phone calls to Mr. Potocnik’s cabinet have not succeeded in acquiring more information. See the Letter from CEIE and Alburnus Maior on behalf of environmental organisations from Cyanide-free EU coalition (pdf).

3. Mining Journal Online, EC rejects proposed cyanide ban, 05 July 2010

Proactive Investors, EMED Mining permitting boosted as EU knocks back proposed cyanide ban, 05 July 2010

4. One instance in which the implementation of the Mining Waste Directive by a Member State has failed is in the case of the introduction of cyanide at the Chelopech Mine in Bulgaria. Here the Bulgarian court revoked the environmental impact assessment approval, and several other proposals to use cyainde leaching technologies are currently being opposed with all legal means by local communities and environmental organisations. Additionally the risks of transboundary pollution have not been well-assessed and Greek communities living downstream on the Arda and Marica/Evros rivers have not been informed nor consulted, as required by the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.