Policy Laboratory 1 Report: Good Governance in Minerals Policy in Europe. Vienna, 4-5 October Minerals Policy Guidance for Europe

Transcription

1 Minerals Policy Guidance for Europe Policy Laboratory 1 Report: Good Governance in Minerals Policy in Europe Vienna, 4-5 October 2016 This project receives funding from the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No

2 Authors: Eric Thomas Mulholland and Andreas Endl (Vienna University of Economics and Business) With contributions by: Gerald Berger (Vienna University of Economics and Business), Michael Tost (Montanuniversität Leoben), Martha Bicket (Policy Studies Institute, University of Westminster) Project coordination and editing provided by Gerald Berger & Andreas Endl Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business Welthandelsplatz 1, A-1020 Vienna, Austria Phone: Manuscript completed in November, 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 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. 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. MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 2

3 MIN-GUIDE Project Partners Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business (Coordinator) Vienna, Austria Policy Studies Institute, University of Westminster London, United Kingdom Montanuniversität Leoben Leoben, Austria Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering Luleå, Sweden National Technical University of Athens Athens, Greece Instituto Geológico y Minero de España Madrid, Spain University of Aveiro Aveiro, Portugal GOPA Com. Brussels, Belgium University of Zagreb Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering Zagreb, Croatia Ministry of the Employment and the Economy Helsinki, Finland MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 3

4 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 5 OPENING AND ORIENTATION... 7 SESSION 1: MIN-GUIDE MINERALS POLICY GUIDE... 8 SESSION 2: GOOD GOVERNANCE IN MINERALS POLICY IN EUROPE - OVERVIEW AND CHARACTERISTICS SESSION 3: PARALLEL POLICY LABORATORIES ON GOOD GOVERNANCE IN MINERALS POLICY PARALLEL POLICY LABORATORIES PROCESS POLICY LABORATORY 1: POLICY STRATEGIES POLICY LABORATORY 2: PERMITTING PROCEDURES POLICY LABORATORY 3: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT SESSION 4: POLICY LABORATORY FEEDBACK SESSION 5: DISCOVERING FUTURE PATHWAYS FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE IN MINERALS POLICY PANEL DISCUSSION NEEDS, GAPS, AND FUTURE POLICY PATHWAYS CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS FOR MIN-GUIDE MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 4

5 MIN-GUIDE Approach for Good Governance Introduction This MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory Report provides information on the inputs, discussions and outcomes of the 1 st MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory: Good Governance in Minerals Policy in Europe, which took place in Vienna on October The MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Good Governance in Minerals Policy in Europe was the first in a series of stakeholder workshops organized in the MIN-GUIDE project. The main objective of Policy Laboratory 1 was to provide an overview of, and reflect upon, good governance examples in Minerals Policy in the EU Member States, through policy strategies, stakeholder management, public policy and legislative approaches in the mining sector, etc. Consequently, the workshop had a twofold approach: informing participants about the most recent progress and steps in the development of the MIN-GUIDE online Minerals Policy Guide, and to facilitate an exchange and learning on good practice approaches among minerals policy decision-makers. In this regard, the MIN-GUIDE Approach for Good Governance is comprised of a set of building blocks that have been derived from both general EU governance frameworks, 1 as well as mining sector specific ones 2. The MIN-GUIDE approach for Good Governance and its related policy instruments and processes are outlined in figure 1 below. Strategic policy framework Policy integration Policy Strategies and Action Plans Horizontal & Vertical policy integration mechanisms Stakeholder involvement Policy Evaluation Mining sector stakeholder management Impact Assessment, indicators Inclusive policy-making Policy learning and appraisal Figure 1: MIN-GUIDE Approach for Good Governance: major building blocks and related policy instruments and mechanisms For the purpose of framing the content, which allows for more detailed and targeted discussions at the first MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory workshop, the project team has more closely looked into: 1) Strategic policy frameworks, 2) Stakeholder involvement, and 3) Streamlined permitting procedures. 1 EU better regulation communication, 2015; EU Treaty and the forthcoming EC Communication on 2030 Agenda for SD; EU White paper for Good Governance, European Innovation Partnership SIP, 2013; Raw Materials Initiative, 2008 MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 5

6 In doing so, the MIN-GUIDE team has selected and elaborated on three good practice cases for each of these Good Governance streams, allowing for interactive, in-depth exchange and policy learning. To this end, the structure and flow of the first MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory workshop focused on the following two aspects after a general Opening and Orientation Session. First, the project team presented the results of a comparative stocktaking of individual EU Member States mineral policies and policy governance frameworks (Session 2 Good Governance in Minerals Policy in Europe - overview and characteristics ) and its visualisation in the first version of the online Minerals Policy Guide (Session 1 "MIN-GUIDE Minerals Policy Guide"). In that sense, it provided an overview on the current status on minerals policies and governance frameworks and new and innovative ways for disseminating this information in the form of an online Policy Guide. The second part of the workshop was dedicated to interactive exchange and learning processes between participants on good practice policy cases (Session 3 Parallel Policy Laboratories on Good Governance in Minerals Policy, Session 4 Feedback from the Policy Laboratories ; figure 2) and identifying present gaps and exploring respective responses in the policy governance frameworks (Session 5 Discovering future pathways for Good Governance in Minerals Policy ). Policy Lab 1: Policy strategies Case 1, SE: Sweden's Minerals Strategy; Ms Lisbeth Hildebrand Case 2, PT: Strategic policy and regulatory framework on mineral resources; Ms Paula Castanheira Dinis Case 3, FI: Making Finland Leader in Sustainable Extractive Industry Action Plan; Ms Riikka Aaltonen Policy Lab 2: Permitting procedures Case 1, IE: Licensing system exploration; Ms Eibhlin Doyle Case 2, DK: Parallel processing of applications; Mr Birgitte Meidahl Petersen Case 3, BE (Flanders): One-door-authority for permitting procedures; Ms Renate Schoofs Policy Lab 3: Stakeholder involvement Case 1, AT: Austrian Raw Material Alliance; Ms Susanne Strobl Case 2, FI: The Network for Sustainable Mining; Mr Eero Yrjö-Koskinen Case 3, GR: National Committee for Mineral Resources; Ms Diamantoula Lampou Figure 2: Policy Laboratory parallel working groups (Policy Lab sessions) MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 6

7 To access the documentation of the 1 st MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory, which includes the (i) Policy Laboratory Agenda; and (ii) presentations given by the keynote speakers and the presenters from the Parallel Policy Laboratories, please find them in PDF format under MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1. In total, 49 participants from 21 countries took part in the workshop that was moderated by Gerald Berger (Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria). 19 participants were policy makers, 10 were from Geological Surveys, 4 were from business or trade associations, 15 were researchers, and 1 was from an international organisation. 32 of the 49 participants were external participants, and the remaining 17 participants were MIN-GUIDE consortium partners. CSO, NGO, Int. Org 2% Business / trade association 8% Research 31% Geological Survey 20% Policy Makers 39% Opening and Orientation The opening and orientation session of the MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1 workshop began with a welcome address by the European Commission, followed by keynote speeches that gave an update on the Minerals Policy Framework in the EU, as well as an overview of the MIN-GUIDE project. This section of the Report will summarise these presentations 3. Dimitrios Biliouris (Project Officer, European Commission- Executive Agency for Small and Mediumsized Enterprises (EASME)) opened the workshop with a welcome address and an overview of EASME. EASME is one of six executive agencies of the EU and is involved in many programs, such as Horizon 2020, COSME, LIFE, and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), spanning the timeframe from 2014 to EASME s core activities include the implementation of the Horizon 2020 programme and will be active through the entire programme s lifecycle. The agency focuses on project management, which allows Directorate Generals (DGs) to concentrate on policy issues: The DG will define policy objectives within the programme design, and the Executive Agencies feed the results of projects into the policy making process. EASME is looking for projects along three different aspects: research and innovation, innovation, and coordination and support. In this regard, Dimitrios explained the rationale of the MIN-GUIDE project in reference to coordination and support action projects. Dimitrios then briefly introduced the project s scope and objectives as they have been outlined in the call of the Horizon 2020 programme. 3 Presentations are available for download on the MIN-GUIDE project website MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 7

8 Anne Auffret (Policy Officer- Raw Materials, Unit Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials, DG Grow, European Commission) began her presentation talking about the policy background of MIN-GUIDE from the European Commission side, focusing on the Raw Materials Initiative and the European Innovation Partnership s Strategic Implementation Plan (EIP SIP). The Raw Materials Initiative is based on three pillars: pillar 1 covers the fair and sustainable supply of raw materials from global markets; pillar 2 covers the fostering of sustainable supply within the EU; and pillar 3 covers boosting resource efficiency and promoting recycling. Anne then went on to talk about the policy background of the European Innovation Partnership Plan and the framework conditions for primary raw materials, highlighting the areas of activity, such as minerals policy framework conditions, access to mineral potential in the EU, and public awareness, acceptance and trust. Anne focused and drew attention to the first part of the Plan, which covers the practices of the Member States, EU guidance and legislation, and communication. Anne then transitioned and discussed projects that are similar to MIN-GUIDE, for which certain synergies and collaborations are utilised. Anne highlighted past Horizon 2020 Calls for tender, which included MINLEX (2016), which focused on permitting procedures, and on MINATURA2020 ( ), which developed a methodology for the definition and subsequent protection of mineral deposits of public importance. Both of these projects have important links to MIN-Guide ( ), which seeks to develop a Minerals Policy Guide. In addition to these past Calls, Anne mentioned two future Calls that are also closely associated with these past projects: 2017 Call 1: Linking land-use planning policies to national mineral policies (building upon the results of MINATURA2020); and 2017 Call 2: EU network of mining and metallurgy regions both of which will play an important role for MIN-GUIDE. André Martinuzzi (Head of the Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria) closed this session by discussing MIN-GUIDE in more detail, highlighting its focus and its potential for improving the policy framework regarding good governance. MIN-GUIDE, with good governance as one of its foci, will help in (i) supporting policy coherence with policy strategies and action plans; (ii) streamlining administrative procedures for permitting, in order to create a more stable business environment; and (iii) involving stakeholders to foster greater transparency and legitimacy in minerals policy. André continued by outlining the three main features of MIN-GUIDE: 1) the online Minerals Policy Guide, 2) annual conferences, and 3) policy laboratory workshops. Session 1: MIN-GUIDE Minerals Policy Guide During the Minerals Policy Guide session, two speakers from the MIN-GUIDE consortium, Peter Barbrook-Johnson (Policy Studies Institute, University of Westminster, UK) and Veronika Cerna (GOPA, Belgium), talked about the MIN-GUIDE Online Minerals Policy Guide. MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 8

9 Peter Barbrook-Johnson, in his presentation, briefly outlined the purpose of the MIN-GUIDE online Minerals Policy Guide to provide guidance on minerals policy by developing a knowledge repository. This knowledge repository should: (i) achieve greater transparency of EU and Member State policy and legislation; (ii) outline the EU Member States minerals policy governance framework; (iii) facilitate policy learning between EU Member States; (iv) contribute to coherence in the minerals policy sector; and (v) provide a favourable framework for the implementation of the EIP on Raw Materials. In order to achieve these objectives, the Policy Guide will deliver a: (i) web-based knowledge repository of policy and legislation; (ii) assessment of policy and industry good practice cases; (iii) fit-for-purpose for different stakeholder groups; and (iv) whole chain of mining activities. Furthermore, Peter highlighted that the Minerals Policy Guide has so far integrated and digitalised results from the stocktaking of the EU Member States, as well as from the EU level minerals policy frameworks and respective governance processes, in an effort to discover and assess user needs. The future iterations and updates of the Guide will take into account user needs assessments building upon the current Minerals Policy Guide structure. The first iteration includes data on minerals and related policies from each Member State and from the EU level. The data have been further disaggregated to reflect each level of the value chain: exploration, extraction, processing, waste management, mine closure, and data and statistics standardisation. Future updates will contain information on good practice industry cases of policies that promote innovation in the mining sector, and their relation to EU Member State policy frameworks. Veronika Cerna followed up with the practical application of the Minerals Policy Guide website, leading participants through the website s navigation. Veronika outlined its basic content, in which each country has its own page and structure, covering mineral policies, related policies, and governance processes. The part on EU Member State governance frameworks is disaggregated further into horizontal policy integration, vertical policy integration, stakeholder integration, and policy evaluation. The website also allows users to search different keywords and criteria simultaneously, such as by country, type of policy instrument, value chain relevance, and policy type. The website will be updated on a continuous basis. The discussion with participants indicated that MIN-GUIDE will foresee closer collaboration with key EU Member State policy experts and policy makers (i.e. national focal points) to validate the information of the Minerals Policy Guide. After, Veronika Cerna lead participants through the website walkthrough. There were some comments from the participants that were centred on the accuracy of the information that will be available on the website. Veronika assured participants that only a selected group of experts (e.g. national focal points from the EU Member States) had editing rights, and could not update anything without having the approval of a MIN-GUIDE consortium partner. A suggestion for future development, going along the same line as ensuring accurate information, was to establish a relationship and a formal protocol with the relevant ministry or public authority for minerals policy from each country. Other questions were in regards to what MIN-GUIDE will do once the project is over? The answer to that question was that, potentially, the national focal points would take over, and would verify that they would be willing to do this. MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 9

10 Session 2: Good Governance in Minerals Policy in Europe - Overview and Characteristics In this session, Horst Hejny (MinPol, Germany) and Andreas Endl (Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria) gave presentations centred around minerals policy and the integration of good governance mechanisms therein. Horst Hejny focused on minerals policy and governance at the EU and Member State level and discussed the characteristics and challenges. There was a focus on minerals policy at the EU and Member State level and its differences. Minerals policy at the EU level deals with sets of initiatives that target the sustainable supply of mineral resources from European deposits, as well as a set of secondary legislation affecting raw materials production in the Member States. Minerals policy at the Member State level, on the other hand, focuses on a set of rules and legislation that provides access to minerals, as well as their subsequent exploitation within the territory. There are many challenges that the EU and the Member States face in terms of accessing minerals for exploration and exploitation, such as reduced access to resources, public opposition, problematic permitting procedures, inconsistent minerals policies, heterogeneous legislative frameworks, and scarcity of reliable data. In order to show the complexity of the problem for Europe, it is important to recognise the importance of individual policy contributions to these challenges. Andreas Endl outlined in his presentation the first results of the MIN-GUIDE project: a stocktaking of 1) EU level and EU Member States individual minerals and related policies, and 2) EU Member State mineral policy governance frameworks. First, Andreas explained the MIN-GUIDE approach to Good Governance and highlighted its importance for policy in the EU and EU Member States, in general, and the mining sector, in particular. Andreas indicated that Good Governance, as a concept for guiding public policy decision-making, is an important pre-requisite for achieving general outcomes, such as legitimacy, policy coherence and integration. In that sense, the integration of Good Governance in general policy decision-making provides enabling conditions for the design of policy instruments, targeting innovation in the mining sector. Andreas then specified the MIN-GUIDE approach in more detail by explaining its major building blocks and related policy instruments and processes. Andreas Endl continued by presenting key facts, highlights and EU Member State good practice cases on the stocktaking of individual minerals and governance frameworks. Specifically, Andreas outlined good practices for strategic policy frameworks in the form of detailed Action Plans and comprehensive Mineral Strategies in the cases of Finland and Sweden, respectively, and comprehensive indicator and monitoring frameworks for policy revision in Portugal. Furthermore, Andreas outlined that the outcomes of the stocktaking exercise have been compiled and disseminated in two ways: a synthesised and shortened version in the form of one EU level and 28 Member State country profiles, and a detailed and complete version in the form of a Project Deliverable Taking stock of EU and Member States Mineral Policy and the MIN-GUIDE Minerals Policy Guide Version 1.0. In that sense, Andreas pointed out that the current status of the MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 10

11 stocktaking exercise is the first stage in a series of updates in profiling EU Member States minerals policy frameworks in more detail. Session 3: Parallel Policy Laboratories on Good Governance in Minerals Policy In his presentation, An introduction to the concepts of policy learning & transfer, Andreas Endl, on the one hand, explained the application of these concepts for the setup of the Policy Laboratory workshop, and, on the other hand, informed participants about the three parallel policy lab sessions. He pointed out that the Policy Laboratory workshops are important means for individual minerals policy decision-makers and other mining sector stakeholders to learn about how to (re)design the minerals policy in order to achieve successful policy transfer and the convergence of policy discourse and ideas. He outlined what the challenges for policy learning are, and how they are appropriately dealt with within the setting of the Policy Laboratory Workshop: 1) providing in-depth comprehension and understanding on how the policy works and what its goals are, 2) identifying crucial factors that led to preferred outcomes of the policy, and 3) reflecting on framework conditions that shaped the policies success. Building on this understanding, Andreas Endl explained the approach of the parallel policy lab sessions, focusing on i) an interactive process that puts the learners role, both good practice presenter and participant, in the centre, ii) pre-defines the process, but leaves freedom to learners in defining goals and content, and iii) bases discussions on facts, as well as personal experience (i.e. good practice case presentations and input paper). Parallel Policy Laboratories Process In Parallel Policy Laboratory Part I Listening, exchanging, and learning, the participants split themselves up based on their interests in the different Policy Laboratories that were being offered. Policy Laboratory 1 dealt with policy strategies, in which Sweden, Portugal, and Finland had representatives, who presented on the policy strategies in those countries. Policy Laboratory 2 dealt with the permitting procedures of Ireland, Denmark, and Flanders in Belgium, in which the presenters presented on how permitting functions in their countries. Policy Laboratory 3 dealt with stakeholder involvement in minerals policy. Like the previous two laboratories, there were also three presenters, representing three country cases, Austria, Finland, and Greece. After listening to presentations about country cases during the different Policy Laboratories, participants were asked to split up and partake in small table group discussions within the Policy Laboratories they chose. Each of the group discussions revolved around one out of the three country cases of the specific Policy Laboratories. Each group received a country case sheet (i.e. flipchart paper with predefined structure) on which participants wrote down up to three aspects they found interesting and thought provoking about their particular case. After debating and discussing the most important aspects from their respective case, in Part II Exploring transferability participants were then asked to go one step further and discuss the transferability of these important aspects into other contexts, for example in a country or regional context. Participants, after noting down MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 11

12 important points of their transferability discussions on the flipcharts, presented their discussions to the other two groups within their respective Policy Laboratories. Due to the fact that participants were requested to pick only one Policy Laboratory to attend, the Report provides brief summaries of each presentation from each policy laboratory summarised in the following sections below (5.3. Policy Lab 1: Policy Strategies, 5.4. Policy Lab 2: Permitting Procedures, and Policy Lab 3: Stakeholder Involvement). For a more detailed summary of the individual country cases, please consult the Input Paper to the Policy Laboratory 1 Workshop. Following the country case summaries, the Report presents the results from each of the cases on the three important aspects that were chosen, as well as the transferability of these aspects. Policy Laboratory 1: Policy Strategies Case 1 (Sweden): Sweden s Minerals Strategy Case Presenter Established Objective Main Responsible Organization Further Information Lisbeth Hildebrand Geological Survey Sweden (2012) on-going The overall objective of Sweden s Minerals Strategy is to increase the competitiveness of the mining and minerals industry. In this context, Sweden s mineral assets are to be exploited in a long-term sustainable way, with consideration of ecological, social and cultural factors, so that natural and cultural environments are preserved and developed. Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications Aspect Good communication between ministries, the geological survey, other authorities, and stakeholders was very important in planning, Results of the participants' discussion Transferability One of the key ingredients for the long-term transferability of the Mineral Strategy was a stable and transparent regulatory framework. In MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 12

13 developing and implementing Sweden s Mineral Strategy. Another important aspect to Sweden s Mineral Strategy was open and free data, which includes mineral inventory, borehole data, and data for investment. The Mineral Strategy is linked with other strategies, such as F.E.X industrialization addition to that, an understanding of the need for minerals, in terms of socio-economic benefits, is also important in transferability. From the side of the government, there needs to be a sincere and heartfelt approach in communication, focusing on a two-way communication model, in which information is not just communicated from the top down, but also from the bottom up. For Sweden s Mineral Strategy, good data means good investment, which is important for the transferability of the strategy. Another transferable aspect from Sweden is that they highlight the potential of their mineral resources. Data should be easy to access and have no constraints. Within the government there is awareness for minerals across the department. The strategies are dynamic and they are designed to be flexible and change with time. It is left unclear whether prioritisation should be considered a desirable trait. Case 2 (Portugal): Strategic Portuguese Policy and Regulatory Framework on Mineral Resources Case Presenter Paula Castanheira Dinis Direcção-Geral de Energia e Geologia (DGEG) Established 2016 Objective In the context of the National Strategy for Geological Resources and Mineral Resources (NSGR-MR) the Direcção-Geral de Energia e Geologia established the new Mining Code as a framework for the promotion of the Portuguese mining industry. Its objective is to ensure the uptake of investments for exploration and exploitation of mineral resources, balancing economic, social and environmental considerations, and to promote the sustained growth of the mining sector. MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 13

14 Main Responsible Organization Further Information General Directorate for Energy and Geology Aspect Some of the key aspects of Portugal s legislative framework are social openness and responsibility among government authorities and other stakeholders. From the government s side, they give edicts and produce publications, and also involve municipalities. From the business side of the equation, companies receive revenue through royalties. Sustainable mining is also another feature of the Portuguese legislative framework, which tries to ensure the principles of coexistence and parity. Results of the participants' discussion Transferability In terms of societal openness, this is easy to transfer if systems or protocol for sharing are developed. Information depends on the local and national contexts. Royalties could be transferable only if ownership in the public domain and a history of similar payments or royalties occurred in the past. The concept of sustainable mining in the legislative framework entails the principle of parity and coexistence of mining land uses next to other landuse types. An important condition for the achievement of this principle is the harmonisation of mining and land use policies. More specifically, to put mining concerns on equal terms with other land uses, the mining sector needs to be represented at the level where land use planning decisions are being made. The Portuguese legislative framework has provisions for rehabilitating and repurposing old mining areas. The framework prescribes, on the one hand, the preservation of the area during the time they are used during operation, and, on the other hand, that the involvement of municipalities is key. Necessary steps to achieve the rehabilitation of old mining areas is, first, to create an inventory of sites, and, secondly, to prioritise the sites. Moreover, governmental and political will was necessary to redirect tax revenues and allocate funds for rehabilitation purposes. MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 14

15 Case 3 (Finland): Making Finland Leader in Sustainable Extractive Industry Action Plan Case Presenter Established Objective Main Responsible Organization Further Information Riikka Aaltonen Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2013) on-going There was a need in Finland for a more broadly based approach and a strengthened framework for implementing agreed actions in the Minerals Resource Strategy. The National Action Plan meets both these needs, while at the same time promoting coherence and consistency across the various initiatives being undertaken as a result of the Action Plan, which seeks to improve policy and the legislative framework. The Geological Survey Aspect The network activities between, and among, stakeholders are a key aspect in Finland s Action Plan. There was a great need to introduce the role of collaboration for implementation success. There needs to be rapid responses to issues that may arise, even if they are sudden and unexpected. Results of the participants' discussion Transferability This networking aspect can be transferred, but there has to be knowledge-based discussions. More modern modes of communication, which take less time, need to be utilized. There also needs to be an exhaustive identification of stakeholders, because one runs the risk of having too many present to really have meaningful knowledgebased discussions. Prior trust in the ecosystem, coupled with commitment and political will, is a prerequisite for successful implementation. In order to transfer this trait, a flexible approach to how strategies are implemented, while still managing to stay on the original path of the MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 15

16 strategy would need to be developed. One should always expect unknown unknowns to happen. The world is full of uncertainties, so one must have certain systems and reaction plans in place to deal with these unknown unknowns. Policy Laboratory 2: Permitting Procedures Case 1 (Ireland): Licensing System for Exploration Case Presenter Eibhlin Doyle Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources Exploration and Mining Division (EMD) Established - Objective Main Responsible Organization Further Information Issuance of Prospecting Licenses and Extraction Licences. Exploration and Mining Division (EMD) is responsible for licensing pertaining to exploration. For extraction licensing, there are three authorities: EMD, Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and City Councils that are responsible. - MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 16

17 Aspect Ireland has a separation between exploration and mining. The exploration process has a one-stop-shop for prospecting licenses (PLs), whereas mining has a more complicated and involved process. Ireland has security of tenure, which means one has the rights to exploration and extraction: Once one gets an exploration permit, it is theirs (unless one does criminal things) and has the right for both exploration and mine development afterwards if something is discovered. This is unique to Ireland. In Ireland, data from companies is available on the web free of charge. Results of the participants' discussion Transferability In Romania, they have a one-stop-shop for exploration, like Ireland. Spain, however, has a one-stop-shop for mining. In Romania, the Prospecting License is not exclusive for mining. Also, the one who finds the minerals is then able to develop them. Romania has security of tenure. Spain agrees with this method of having data available. In Romania, this data is confidential and only between the mining authority and the interested company. Denmark also said this information was confidential. Case 2 (Denmark): Parallel Processing of Applications Case Presenter Birgitte Meidahl Petersen Centre for Regional Development Established - Objective Main Responsible Organization Further Information Issue permits for exploration and extraction in relation to land- and marine-based minerals. Regional Councils (land-based extraction and exploration) Danish Nature Agency (marine-based extraction and exploration) - MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 17

18 Aspect For Denmark, many questions were raised surrounding ownership of minerals. Does the landowner own the minerals on their land? If the landowner owns the surface rights, do they have the right to excavate? The landowner owns aggregates. Natural gas, oil, etc., however, are owned by the state. EIA in Denmark is based on time limit and area limitation. In Denmark, one needs to have a remediation plan, as well as payment for remediation (guarantee) Results of the participants' discussion Transferability This aspect is only transferable due to the expropriation option in the case of a lack of aggregates. The state ownership of minerals is normal practice in several countries. One only needs a full EIA if one s project is longer, hence the time limit, or larger, hence the area limit, than a certain limit, which makes it easier for smaller projects. Denmark has remediation and it is now standard in the industry. When one applies for a mining permit, one needs to include a closure/remediation plan, which includes closure costs. One then needs to come up with a financial guarantee, letter of credit, closure fund, etc., for these closure costs. Case 3 (Belgium: Flanders): One-Door-Authority for Permitting Procedures Case Presenter Renate Schoofs Flemish government, Environment, Nature & Energy Department Established - Objective In Flanders the Ministry of Environment, Nature and Energy s objectives are to prepare, follow-up, evaluate the Flemish environmental policy and award all permits for exploration and extraction. MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 18

19 Main Responsible Organization Further Information Responsibility of the three regions: Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels-Capital Region. - Results of the participants' discussion Aspect Transferability Flanders has "planned areas" for mining in - their land use plans, which is based on existing geological information. This is done based on if they "only have - surface mineral resources, aggregates in their "geology". If they also have underground or metal resources, their policy could, or would, be different. Flanders will have a one-stop-shop for - exploration. Policy Laboratory 3: Stakeholder Involvement Case 1 (Austria): Raw Material Alliance Case Presenter Established Objective Main Responsible Organization Further Information Susanne Strobl Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy 2012 (on-going) The objective of the Raw Material Alliance is to keep stakeholders informed on both topical discussions along the whole raw material value chain (e.g. acceptance of mining activity) as well as on specific instruments (e.g. Austrian Minerals Strategy). Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy x MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 19

20 Aspect One important aspect of the Austrian Raw Material Alliance is the leadership and understanding of the government of the importance of minerals. It is very important to manage the stakeholder process. Objectives need to be defined, in order to be understood. Secondary resources also need to be addressed. Results of the participants' discussion Transferability A sufficient level of awareness among government, stakeholders, and citizens, is needed, in order to really understand, and to have a clear picture of what minerals are. They are not this preconceived notion of a coalmine. Inviting the correct stakeholders to the table is important in achieving results. For this aspect to be transferable, silos need to be broken down, and stakeholders need to communicate and share with one another. When talking about minerals, defining the terminology across the different stakeholders becomes important. Case 2 (Finland): The Network for Sustainable Mining Case Presenter Established Objective Main Responsible Organization Further Information Eero Yrjö-Koskinen Kaivosvastuu May 2014-July 2015 (Sitra), August on-going Develop and open, balanced and continuous dialogue and cooperation between the mining industry and its stakeholders, as well as to promote the development of more responsible, sustainable and predictable mining practices in Finland. Another objective is to strengthen the mining sector s voluntary self-regulation mechanisms. Finnish Innovation Fund (Sitra) (May 2014-July 2015), The Network for Sustainable Mining (August 2015) on-going MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 20

21 Aspect In Finland, the Network for Sustainable Mining had motivation for action, in which the mining sector and key stakeholders joined together. Finland made use of international experiences, from Canada, and adapted them to their local circumstances. A unique aspect to Finland was there is sufficient funding for the continuation of the Network s activities. Results of the participants' discussion Transferability Stakeholders must be involved in the planning of mining policies and projects before the planning actually begins. This is a broadly transferable skill that involves researching and discovering what the best practices elsewhere are, and making use of them at a local and contextualized level. One should not try to reinvent the wheel all over again. An alternative to funding would be to set up an independent trust fund to avoid funding that solely comes from the mining industry. Case 3 (Greece): National Committee for Mineral Resources Case Presenter Established Objective Main Responsible Organization Further Information Diamantoula Lampou Ministry of Environment and Energy - General Directorate of Mineral Resources 2012 (on-going) The purpose of the National Committee for Mineral Resources is to provide general proposals for better exploitation of mineral resources (i.e. new projects/policies/programmes) and, furthermore, give their opinion about new laws or revision of existing ones from an external expert point of view. General Secretariat for Energy and Mineral Resources - MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 21

22 Results of the participants' discussion Aspect Transferability The National Committee offers confidence. This, however, depends on the composition of the Committee. The decisions of politicians should be - separated from the public. The National Committee involves academics in mineral policy. There needs to be a common language between the representatives from ministries and academia. MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 22

23 Session 4: Policy Laboratory Feedback In this session, the Policy Laboratory facilitators, Andreas Endl (Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria): Policy Laboratory 1, Michael Tost (Montanuniversität, Leoben, Austria): Policy Laboratory 2, and Martha Bicket (Policy Studies Institute, United Kingdom): Policy Laboratory 3, shared the results of their respective Policy Laboratory with all participants, which can be seen in the sections above. In addition to each of the facilitators presenting on the results of their lab, the participants were also able to comment and ask questions. Questions and comments regarding Policy Lab 1: Policy Strategies, touched upon the issue of political commitment, where it was noted that politicians are fairly reluctant to address and support the mining sector. The political commitment issue is also hard to influence from a stakeholder perspective. However, integrating and linking policy strategies regarding minerals to other strategies may be a more plausible route to facilitate support from other policy sectors. One participant asked, Have you found out how to integrate it into other strategies, and how do you link it to bigger strategies, such as economic strategies? Andreas Endl agreed that political drive and the involvement of other ministries were important factors that the mining sector needs to keep in mind: It is much easier to integrate minerals policy into other sectors if there exist mechanisms for horizontal policy integration at the political and administrative level. The questions and comments directed at Michael Tost touched upon the need for differentiation between aggregates and metals during the permitting procedures. Other comments focused on the necessity of having a mine closure plan that has the correct finances to close down the mine, because that is often an area of contention in issuing permits for extraction. The key take-away from this particular Policy Laboratory was the distinct separation between exploration and exploitation: Ireland has a one-stop-shop for permitting in regards to exploration. Ireland also shared that mining data becomes publicly available after six years. One comment, regarding the permitting process, was of surprise, because there were so many similarities between countries regarding their permitting processes, which emphasised the same concerns and thought processes are happening across Member States. The focus during the Policy Laboratory 2 shifted back to Ireland and their one-stop-shop permitting procedure for exploration. One comment summed up the logic of having countries adopt this onestop-shop method, stating that prior knowledge of where deposits are located is a necessary step for future planning activities. One participant commented on this point, stating that it is a very good example, because in some countries there are many laws that would need to be changed, in order to become a one-stop-shop. For such countries, it becomes very difficult to change and adopt this onestop-shop method for permitting. One last comment that was made during Policy Laboratory 2 s feedback session was that it is hard to compare procedures for different types of minerals, such as aggregates and base metals. In the last feedback session on Policy Laboratory 3, Martha Bicket indicated that all the presented cases had a clear structure for stakeholder management in common. Consequently, the aspects MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 23

24 were broadly transferable as long as the correct stakeholders were present during these stakeholder processes. It was noticed that during such stakeholder meetings, the credibility among those participating, increases. Stakeholder meetings can be a highly beneficial process for the mining sector, provided it is done in a way that fosters credibility among stakeholders. Such stakeholder processes should also try to ensure that academics are involved in meetings. Also of high importance is the government s support for the mining industry. Apart from governmental support, finance is also an important aspect in the facilitation of stakeholder processes, because funding always helps in covering expenses for meetings and the process, in general. The funding for such participatory processes could stem from stakeholders and mining companies. Making a business case for the support of such networks, therefore, becomes vitally important. Another important aspect mentioned with regard to Policy Laboratory 3 was about, getting the right people into these stakeholder processes, and how that can be accomplished? The answer, which drew upon the discussions from the interactive part of this Policy Laboratory, was that the more voices and the more stakeholders that become involved, the more challenging it is to reach a consensus. It becomes much harder to find the lowest common denominator between the different stakeholders, which can result in nothing being done. Session 5: Discovering Future Pathways for Good Governance in Minerals Policy Panel Discussion The purpose of the Panel Discussions was to provide a wide variety of stakeholder perspectives on the needs and gaps of current minerals policy framework and governance. Additionally, the Panel Discussions were used to introduce interesting thoughts and ideas for a follow-up group work involving the participants. In the Panel Discussion, four panellists shared their experiences dealing with minerals policies. The first panellist to present was Carmen Marchán Sanz (Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, Spain). Carmen began her discussion by emphasising the importance of updates regarding mineral policies in Spain. Carmen also stressed the importance of knowing precisely what it is that people are talking about with respect to vocabulary and terminology: Different stakeholders with various backgrounds, coming from different countries, working at different levels (policy makers designing policy and practitioners responsible for implementation) sometimes do not use the same vocabulary, which can lead to misunderstandings and confusion. In Spain, mining policy has a more regional focus than a national one. Thus, one of the major challenges, and a future need, regarding minerals policy is the open and transparent collaboration and communication between ministries, stakeholders, authorities, industry, and the Geological Survey. Furthermore, the lack of political commitment for mining policy and the sector overall is another issue to be considered in the future: Essentially, there is less political will to bring forward a minerals policy framework supporting the mining sector, especially in the area facilitating a social licence to operate, as well as lack of finances for mine closure and land reclamation. MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 24

25 Valentin Calin (National Agency for Mineral Resources, Romania) briefly outlined what Romania is doing in terms of its minerals policy. He mentioned that Romania has a three-stop-shop for permitting, but that there is still room for improvement with regard to governance processes and procedures in the licensing system. Thus, future activities are focusing on streamlining permitting procedures in Romania through a more strategic approach. However, Valentin highlighted the lack of clarity and ambiguity of environmental concerns in the mining sector in general that are hindering the sector s development. These issues will need more concerted efforts, in order to be resolved in the future. Corina Hebestreit (Director, EUROMINES) was the next to discuss on the panel. Corina started off by cautioning policy-makers to not focus too much on legislation, and advised that they should use the MINLEX study results on permitting procedures to obtain information. Corina stressed the fact that political changes can make a world of difference in the mining world. In this context, Corina posed a number of questions to the audience as ideas to think about for the upcoming group discussions: How do we get this down to the shop floor?, Do these policies have measures for adaptation, change, growth, etc.?, Do we have evaluations?, How do we assess the success of the policy?, Do countries have scoreboards?, Do they use the Commission s scoreboard?, Is the scoreboard even appropriate for all countries to use? Manuel Regueiro González-Barros (Institute of Geology and Minerals, Spain) stressed in his discussion that there is a clear disparity in the information that is available between countries: in some countries there is a lot of information, but in others hardly anything. Manuel also made reference to the mining sector s role within the circular economy. However, some countries are highly complex in the sense that they are states within states, due to their highly federal or highly regional make-up, such as Germany and Spain respectively. In order to bridge gaps between regions and between countries, there needs to be some kind of general guidelines for permitting across the EU. There is a clear issue at hand if it can take two months to receive a permit in one country, but ten years in another. Manuel stressed the importance of a standard practice that can harmonise the permitting process throughout Europe. To wrap up the discussion panel, the moderator, Gerald Berger, asked each of the panelists, What is the most important aspect in minerals policy with regard to good governance? The panel members shared the opinion that communication, cooperation, and collaboration were the most important aspects in terms of minerals policy and good governance. Open communication and collaboration could help to bridge gaps on so many different levels, such as at the policy and political level, stakeholder level, business level, and civil society level, with respect to mining. Needs, Gaps, and Future Policy Pathways During interactive group discussions, following much the same format as the interactive activities in the Policy Laboratories, participants were asked to form seven groups of roughly six participants. The objective of the activity was for participants to reflect on the needs, gaps and future pathways on the topics of policy coherence, an enabling business environment, and legitimacy and transparency. Participants were also invited to bring to the table any other topic they may have MIN-GUIDE Policy Laboratory 1: Report 25