COMMON FORUM 26 & 27 April, 2012 Basel (Switzerland) Welcome

Transcription

1 COMMON FORUM 26 & 27 April, 2012 Basel (Switzerland) Welcome

2 Agenda Common Forum 26 of April Welcome Address Introduction to the legal framework of Switzerland Introduction to the contaminated land situation of the chemical industry in Switzerland Field trip: the Novartis Campus New participants Information about countries ICCL follow-up

3 27 of April Agenda Common Forum European Agenda: EEA soil activities Soil Framework Directive IED Research and technical issues Risk-Informed and Sustainable land management Sustainable remediation / redevelopment SNOWMAN activities CF Secretariat news Future meetings

4 MAP 1 - Organisation

5 1 - New participants New representatives: Cyprus: Andreas Denmark: Leo UK: Will EEA: Gertruui Other representatives in Europe to contact?

6 2 Welcome / Introduction Welcome Address by Armin Zust (NOVARTIS) The legal framework of Switerland - Christoph The contaminated land situtions of the chemical industry in Switzerland, by Günter Fritz (BASF)

7 3- Countries information UK Slovakia Luxemburg The Netherlands Austria Denmark

8 4- ICCL follow-up (1/11) ICCL feedback Your point of view on the Washington meeting structure? Plenary + parallel sessions. Support to identify country representatives to invite for the future meetings Subjects to be discussed in South Africa?

9 4- ICCL follow-up (2/11) ICCL topics of discussion: Current proposal of SA: Integrating Contaminated site Remediation and reuse strategies Public Private Partnerships for site remediation (vs. liability issues,legal, Technical, Finance and social issues Community involvement in site remediation/re-use Other topics?

10 4- ICCL follow-up (3/11) World bank discussions Meeting in October with 2 Region Repres. Identification of needs from their side: Platform of exchange / experiences Common framework for dealing with contaminated sites Capacity building, training, expertise Long-term: multidonor fund

11 4- ICCL follow-up (4/11) World bank discussions Meeting in March with Env Division Join the Blacksmith Institute project Review their «how to deal with pollution» Discussion on the additional needs

12 4- ICCL follow-up (5/11) Blacksmith institute projects: 1. Nomenclature. From 'Inventory' and 'Site Assessment' to 'Database' and 'Screening' to be in line with the real objectives of the developed tools. Blacksmith will change these terms. and was appreciative of the feedback. 2. Inherent value of the database. ICCL has issue with large site inventory. There are other ways to proceed for raising public awareness. Blacksmith noted that most of the countries where we are collecting data have no information, or no public health information, and need this work so they can a) recognize the problem, and b) begin the next steps. Blacksmith also pointed out that understanding the global burden of disease data has broad benefit for all parties.

13 4- ICCL follow-up (6/11) Blacksmith institute projects: 3. Scoring approach: Blacksmith Index tool has important limitations and constraints. Blacksmith outlined the more detailed analysis (currently underway) Both parties agreed that any scoring tool should be integrated in a toolbox with technical guidance documents for all phases that could be necessary to use (from prevention to solution tools ). 4. Moving away from the polluter pays principle as unique legal way to deal with polluted sites. more nuanced responses have been developed in experienced countries and could be adapted to developing countries. 5. ICCL had ideas about the next steps of creating plans for implementing solutions. Collaboration possible (WB demand). 6. Next meeting early May, in Brussels.

14 4- ICCL follow-up (7/11) Blacksmith institute projects: Point of View? Who has been contacted? USA, Canada Germany, Finland France in April

15 4- ICCL follow-up (8/11) WB Legacy Pollution Document Remarks sent the 6th of April User s guide: better distribution between new project / operating sites / legacy pollution, and tools vs stakeholeders Legal aspects: Polluter Pays Principle and source removal, complexity for private sector, national pg Technical aspects: Risk Ass. & Management, use of values, source removal vs. remediation Document under revision to be published beginning of May 2012

16 4- ICCL follow-up (9/11) First attempt for ICCL action plan Expertises for contributing to site projects/ demands (third expertise?, operational cell?) Information / Knowledge Transfer Platform Promotion of best practices / recommended roadmap, links to existing tools, success stories, experts database Development of a common framework / Roadmap for CLM Identification of gaps to be addressed in the future (RTD, policy?)

17 4- ICCL follow-up (10/11) First attempt for ICCL action plan / need for a more structured ICCL based on CF experiences Under one ICCL organisation umbrella ICCL secretariat More as the WB GALPH

18 4- ICCL follow-up (11/11) Andreas assessment of the BI proposal

19 5- European Agenda Soil strategy Industrial Emissions Directive

20 5- Soil Framework Directive EEA soil activities New proposal for a draft soil directive European Commission reports Ernst & Young project on remediation markets for DG ENV Upcoming conference 10 & 11 May 2012 General discussion

21 5- EEA soil activities

22 5- CF alternative proposal (1/7) The aim: inject new thinking into the negotiation The main focus: identify the key issues where differences in position remained, develop alternative textual suggestions consider the ability to implement the Directive, the level and scale of monitoring of the action plans, and the cost effectiveness of any proposed measures highlight the requirement for any EU framework regulation to take into account existing national legal regulations and the experiences

23 5- CF alternative proposal (2/7) Points discussed: Common principles in relation to managing soil based on the principle of sustainability, focusing on preventing soil threats as a priority and agreeing a more targeted, risk-based approach to identification and remediation Other environmental thematic needs such as the Water Framework Directive, the Common Agriculture Policy, etc., and broader issues such as desertification, climate change and biodiversity. Need to avoid fragmentation of soil protection and soil remediation regulations in the EU legal framework. Current dispersion of EU soil provisions that causes difficulties in transposition and implementation

24 5- CF alternative proposal (3/7) The main changes: Clarified definitions, With respect to the contaminated land provisions, an improved overall scheme, which is more targeted and risk-based and that has enough flexibility to take into account local conditions and Member State priorities An on-going dynamic approach, which has a timetable for setting the start of actions, for seeing the progress done by Member States and adapting to new situations

25 5- CF alternative proposal (4/7) Still pending points : The way to remove sites from the registers / inventories Soil Status Reports (are they really needed in an ongoing and public procedure? If so, what type of report should they be and what should the minimum content be?) The need of comitology actions on the methodology of risk assessment.

26 5- CF alternative proposal (5/7) Actual situation: After the CF in Washington final adjustments following the discussions were made at the proposal Since mid December 2011 the CF alternative proposal is published on the CF website The text is available incorporating tracked changes with the Spanish version as basis The text is also available in a cleaned version without tracked changes

27 5- CF alternative proposal (6/7) Actual situation: The CF alternative proposal is also sent to Luca Marmo of the EC as information Until now there is decided not to start an active distribution of the text or information campaign, until there is a change in the (political) opinion of the blocking countries (Point for discussion!) But there are reactions on the proposal via our website

28 5- CF alternative proposal (7/7) Demands of information from: German deputy, Bade-Wurtemberg rep. In Bruxelles, 2 journalists, Comments received from: French Lawyer (note) Send to European Parliament/ ENV and ITER commissions

29 5- Remediation market study (1/2) Ernst & Young project for DG ENV All CF members contacted / Most have answered Intermediate report submitted end of March / meeting with DG ENV mid April Legal framework, best practices, market data A very few data!!! But establishment of a performance indicator per country

30 5- Remediation market study (2/2) Performance criteria per country based on "Regulation in force, Public and/or private organizations, Allocated financial tools, Allocated methodological and technical tools, Identification of contaminated sites, Remediation industry" Next steps: estimation of effects of the SFD implementation (evolution of the market) comparative assessment of statistical information available in MS Final report end of June 2012

31 5- IED (1/2) Amec Study on the baseline report Draft guidance based on contributions received Meeting with DG ENV in February «greater focus and narrower remit in terms of the content, specifically concentrating on the aspects only associated with guidance on the baseline report and not the myriad of interconnected and often inextricably-linked issues associated with site condition, contaminated land and permitted industrial activities» Final draft guidance late april No workshop at this stage

32 5- IED (2/2) CF questionnaire: Proposed Content Sites to be considered Article 11/ use of BAT Baseline report Monitoring requirements, Site closure: data needs vs baseline comparison, Belgium / Flanders comment Others? Optimal deadline?

33 6 Research / technical issues Risk-informed and sustainable land management paper - Dietmar CF / NICOLE Joint statement on SR Sustainable remediation and sustainable redevelopment - Paul SNOWMAN activities - Johan

34 7 CF secretariat issues IMPEL demand INSPIRE consultation JRC soil demand / workshop On going actions: Questionnaires Contribution to Advisory boards of FP7 projects (Hombre, Timbre) Secretariat contractualisation Future meetings

35 7 IMPEL demand (1/2) DECO project on questions of concerns: Application of the polluter pays principle Complexity of the risk assessment procedure Complexity of legislation (vs waste, water leg.) Coexistence of different values (screening, threshold). How to tackle uncertainties? Widespread / Large scale area contamination How to identify sources of pollution?

36 7 IMPEL demand (2/2) Answers sent end of March New questions in April Waiting for their proposal of collaboration.

37 7- INSPIRE (1/3) Mandate: to develop an infrastructure for the exchange of soil data Consultation on the Data Specification on Soil: Soil contamination no longer part of the Mandatory rules of the INSPIRE, but: Given as an example on how to deal with soil data Procedure part of a technical guideline or annex of the Directive. * Our general comments: not appropriate approach: CL information linked to regulatory and financial costs/liabilities Very detailed and extensive data model for a non-binding document - Provoking in the context of the discussion around the Soil Strategy / Directive Using definitions that are not the mandatory or the most common used Not in line with existing inventories / EEA indicators Too linear tiered approach

38 oil 7- INSPIRE (2/3) Specific questions to countries / regions: - the procedures in use in your country fit in the generalized approach proposed? - Is the content/scope of the proposal acceptable and useful for the exchange of data on Soil Contamination on a voluntary basis - if so desired? - Do you propose to include more items in the model and or code lists or do you want to reduce the extent? Contributions from: Austria Belgium / Flanders Denmark Italy

39 7- INSPIRE (3/3) Next steps: final version to be submitted by the 20th of April, 2012 Decision taken by the INSPIRE TWG: * improve the text of the narrative description * move the text including the UML class diagram and the associated feature catalogue to the Annex. It has to be considered as a first attempt showing at an actual level of appropriate detail how data on contaminated and polluted sites can be handled by the model. It can be considered as a kind of generic use case. Also in this case it will not be part of any INPIRE legislation. * This first approach is a basic concept; if actual the soil community can develop this approach later on. No new consultation -

40 oil 7- JRC / demand on - Generic critical values for contaminants for European soils Workshop on mainstreaming soil conservation nto policy impact assessment linking sustainability expertise: 24 April discussions around: Policies and processes Tools and data Science policy interface

41 7 CF Actions (1/4) Questionnaires available on Common Forum website ELD implementation regulatory framework in Member States Mining residues Please verify/update your answer! Please send us your country answer!

42 7 CF Actions (2/4) Questions from other partners RIVM / Screening values for GW R3 / control of difficult plants at brownfield sites (synthesis on line) UN Initiative on Mercury ban / New draft document published in March. To be approved in June NICOLE workshop - 4 December 2012

43 7 CF Actions (3/4) Contribution to FP7 project AB Hombre Holistic Management of Brownfield regeneration (coord. Deltares, NL) Timbre - An Integrated Framework of Methods, Technologies, Tools and Policies for Improvement of Brownfield Regeneration in Europe (coord. UFZ, Germany)

44 7 CF Actions (4/4) Secretariat follow-up 2 new contributors : Luxemburg, UK September 2011 August 2014 More contributions on technical and ICCL demands

45 8 Next meetings (1/1) * Autumn Spanish Basque Country - 23 & 24 of October Bilbao * Spring Germany? Slovakia? - Autumn Back to Back ICCL Meeting - 8 / 11 October 2013

46 COMMON FORUM See you soon