46
1 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3 Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe WP4 Deliverable 4.3 Report on availability of mineral statistics Title of the project: Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe – Minerals4EU Grant Agreement number: 608921 Funding Scheme: FP7-NMP-2013: 4.1-3 –CSA (COORDINATING) Start date: 01.09.2013 Duration: 24 months Document title: Report on availability of mineral statistics Workpackage: WP4 Author(s): Teresa Brown & Evi Petavratzi (NERC-BGS) Date of delivery: April 2015 Dissemination level: PU/PP/RE/CO 1 Reviewed by: WP4 Partners Status of the document: Draft/Final Document location: https://vyvi-some2.vy-verkko.fi/gtk/Minerals4EU/Deliverables Project web site: http://www.minerals4eu.eu 1 PU=public, PP= Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services), RE= Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services), CO= Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Report on availability of mineral statistics

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Report on availability of mineral statistics

1 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe

WP4 Deliverable 4.3 Report on availability of mineral statistics

Title of the project: Minerals Intelligence Network for Europe – Minerals4EU

Grant Agreement number: 608921

Funding Scheme: FP7-NMP-2013: 4.1-3 –CSA (COORDINATING)

Start date: 01.09.2013

Duration: 24 months

Document title: Report on availability of mineral statistics

Workpackage: WP4

Author(s): Teresa Brown & Evi Petavratzi (NERC-BGS)

Date of delivery: April 2015

Dissemination level: PU/PP/RE/CO1

Reviewed by: WP4 Partners

Status of the document: Draft/Final Document location: https://vyvi-some2.vy-verkko.fi/gtk/Minerals4EU/Deliverables

Project web site: http://www.minerals4eu.eu

1 PU=public, PP= Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services), RE= Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services), CO= Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Page 2: Report on availability of mineral statistics

2 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Contents 1 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3 Production data ............................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Essential feedback ................................................................................................................... 6

Data collection methods ................................................................................................ 6

Data sources .................................................................................................................. 7

Data collection within country ...................................................................................... 9

3.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline) ................................................................................... 10

Non-responses to data requests ................................................................................. 10

No central collation or incomplete collation ............................................................... 11

Multiple but different figures for the same commodity ............................................. 11

3.3 Recommendations for future development .......................................................................... 11

4 Import and export data ................................................................................................................. 11

4.1 Essential feedback ................................................................................................................. 11

4.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline) ................................................................................... 12

Data resolution in trade code systems ........................................................................ 12

Triangular trade ........................................................................................................... 12

Accuracy ....................................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Recommendations for future development .......................................................................... 14

5 Resources and reserves data ......................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Essential feedback ................................................................................................................. 14

General points ............................................................................................................. 14

Feedback relating to the questionnaire ...................................................................... 14

Timeliness of questionnaire returns ............................................................................ 18

5.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline) ................................................................................... 19

Definition of key terms ................................................................................................ 19

Internationally recognised systems of reporting ......................................................... 19

Commodity names ....................................................................................................... 20

Collection and collation of data ................................................................................... 22

Page 3: Report on availability of mineral statistics

3 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Confidentiality ............................................................................................................. 22

5.3 Recommendations for future development .......................................................................... 23

6 Exploration data ............................................................................................................................ 24

6.1 Essential feedback ................................................................................................................. 24

6.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline) ................................................................................... 28

Availability of data ....................................................................................................... 28

Inconsistency in use of different metrics .................................................................... 28

Exploration for groups of minerals .............................................................................. 29

6.3 Recommendations for future development .......................................................................... 29

7 Waste flow data ............................................................................................................................. 29

7.1 Essential feedback ................................................................................................................. 29

Data collection and data sources ................................................................................ 29

Data on waste generation ........................................................................................... 32

Data on waste treatment ............................................................................................ 33

Trade data on waste .................................................................................................... 34

7.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline) ................................................................................... 35

Data availability on waste flows .................................................................................. 35

Data availability on mineral-based waste and the Eurostat classification system ...... 36

Data inconsistencies .................................................................................................... 36

7.3 Recommendations for future development .......................................................................... 38

8 Case studies for the supply of secondary raw materials ............................................................... 38

8.1 Essential feedback ................................................................................................................. 38

8.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline) ................................................................................... 41

Data availability and data sources ............................................................................... 41

Definition of lifetime.................................................................................................... 41

Metrics for recycling rates ........................................................................................... 42

8.3 Recommendations for future development .......................................................................... 42

9 Future development of the Yearbook ........................................................................................... 42

Page 4: Report on availability of mineral statistics

4 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

1 Summary This document constitutes the report for Deliverable 4.3 of the Minerals4EU project. It provides essential feedback on the data collected during WP4, broad outlines of the issues and challenges and some recommendations for future actions. The report and its recommendations have been reviewed by all WP4 partners and any modifications suggested by them have been incorporated. This version is now the “final version” of the deliverable. The report is structured by ‘data type’, with sections 3 to 6 relating to primary minerals and sections 7 and 8 relating to secondary materials. The final section contains some suggestions for the future development of the European Minerals Yearbook. With regards to data for the production of primary minerals, there is a correlation between the number of commodities a country produces and the number of different data sources required to complete the statistics annually. Estimates by experienced BGS staff are used to fill data gaps but, with the exception of Turkey, the data are predominately from official sources located within each country. These include national statistical offices, the national geological survey, government ministries or individual company data. Trade (import and export) data are obtained in bulk from an agency that specialises in collating these figures and then compared to the United Nations commodity trade database, Eurostat or national statistics. In general, estimates are not made to fill data gaps because trade data is much more variable than statistics for production and it is often not clear whether the trade flow has ceased or the figure is unavailable for another reason. The resolution of the classification systems used for trade flows can limit the availability of data for certain commodities. Data for resources, reserves and exploration of primary minerals were collected for the first time during the project using specially designed questionnaires. Inevitably the data returned is not comprehensive; no attempts have been made to fill data gaps, although the WP4 team have tried to identify the causes behind these data gaps. The most significant issue for resources and reserves data is the absence of a single system of reporting that is common across all the European countries, which means it is not possible to compare resource or reserve figures between countries. In addition, there have been no attempts to standardise the returned data for the first edition of the European Minerals Yearbook but recommendations are included for how this might be achieved in the future. Data for exploration was collected against six different metrics and, as expected, the returned statistics are not fully complete for any one of those metrics. Despite the incomplete and quite variable nature of the returned data, the statistics presented in the Yearbook for resources, reserves and exploration represent an important first step towards the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and consistent dataset covering all the countries of Europe.

Page 5: Report on availability of mineral statistics

5 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

The availability of data relating to secondary raw materials was known to be an issue at the commencement of the project. However, data relating to waste generation, treatment and trade flows have been brought together and presented in the Yearbook, alongside the data for primary minerals for the first time. The resolution of the presented data is, unfortunately, not comparable to the statistics for primary minerals because the existing statistical classification systems report data by category not individual commodity. Research identifying the quantities of specified commodities that could potentially be recovered from key waste streams has also been carried out under the project, by the Wuppertal Institute. Short (2-page) case studies relating to ten commodities will be included in the first edition of the Yearbook. These commodities are: iron and steel, copper, aluminium, gold, silver, palladium, platinum, indium, yttrium and dysprosium. The digital nature of the European Minerals Yearbook has enabled the production of tables, graphs and maps with some interactive functionality for the user. Obviously, there is much more that could be added to the Yearbook than it was possible to include utilising the resources available during this project. Many ideas were put forward by stakeholders at a workshop held in Brussels in December 2014 and during the six-monthly project progress meetings. The final section of this report includes a list of additional items that have been mentioned but for which there was insufficient time and resources to implement. This is provided in the hope that they may be included in future editions of the Yearbook.

Page 6: Report on availability of mineral statistics

6 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

2 Introduction This constitutes the report required for Deliverable 4.3 of the Minerals4EU project. It provides essential feedback on the data collected during WP4, broad outlines of the issues and challenges and some recommendations for future actions. The report and its recommendations have been reviewed by all WP4 partners and any modifications suggested by them have been incorporated. This version is now the “final version” of the deliverable. The report is structured by ‘data type’, with sections 3 to 6 relating to primary minerals and sections 7 and 8 relating to secondary materials. The final section contains some suggestions for the future development of the European Minerals Yearbook.

3 Production data

3.1 Essential feedback

Data collection methods These data were collected by BGS using long established BGS procedures and an existing network of contacts with data providers. This network of data providers has also been enhanced during the Minerals4EU project. There are essentially three main ways in which BGS collects production data: writing directly to the data source, often using a ‘questionnaire’; receiving printed or digital publications; and consulting websites or web-based databases. The first provides an opportunity for the contacted organisation to pull together the required information (which may be from multiple sources) and return it to BGS in a simple list. This process requires a common understanding of the request between the data compiler and the responding organisation, e.g. what the commodity names mean, what form of commodity is required (e.g. metal content or gross weight) and what units are to be used. It also requires the experience of BGS staff to understand and interpret the responses received. The second method allows the data provider to include more context with the statistics and thus enable the data user or compiler to better understand what the figures represent. Good examples of mineral yearbooks received by BGS are those compiled for Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. Each of these contains short chapters per mineral commodity with information relating to all relevant aspects for that commodity. The disadvantage of these types of yearbooks is the timescale required to produce them, which inevitably means some delay in their release. As a consequence, data are also received from these countries by questionnaire in order that the most recent year of data can be made available before the publication of the corresponding national yearbooks. The third method of obtaining data requires BGS staff to develop an understanding of where data is stored in a website or web-based database and in some instances it can take some time to discover the data. However, once this has been established it can be quite quick to extract

Page 7: Report on availability of mineral statistics

7 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

the figures required and this method has the advantage that no contact is required with the staff of the organisation concerned. Regular changes to a website or web-based database, however, can cause significant time delays.

Data sources Data sources vary from country to country as shown in Table 1. The numbers quoted in this table represent the quantities of individual pieces of data provided by that category of data provider. For example, of the seven mineral commodities produced by Denmark, data for five commodities was sourced from the statistical office, one came from a government ministry and one was estimated by BGS staff. Data sources will vary slightly from year to year for certain countries. For example, data for Turkey in recent years has been received one year behind that requested, i.e. when 2013 data were requested, 2012 data were supplied. As a consequence the number of data sources for 2012 data may be different to that shown for 2013. For some countries, one organisation is able to provide all, or the majority, of mineral production data but for others a wider range of different sources is required and this is also shown graphically in Figure 1. There is a broad correlation between the number of commodities produced and the number of sources required to complete the dataset, as demonstrated by the trendline in the graph. The position of the United Kingdom in Figure 1 is slightly misleading because it is the British Geological Survey (BGS) that collates production data for all countries globally. If another organisation was performing this task it would be able to obtain all the required United Kingdom data from a single source, i.e. the BGS, and the point representing the UK in Figure 1 would be relocated to a similar position to that shown for Bosnia & Herzegovina. Where data are available for a country’s production of a particular commodity from more than one source, all figures are recorded in the BGS World Mineral Statistics database. These can be used for quality assurance of the reported data, e.g. to confirm whether or not a figure is likely to be accurate. Investigations into the reasons behind discrepancies between such figures can often lead to improvements in the data for future years.

Page 8: Report on availability of mineral statistics

8 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Data sources for 2013 production data Quantity of

commodities produced

Number of different sources

used

Statist-ical

Office

Govern-ment

Ministry*

Geolog-ical

Survey Company

Data

Other (reported or estimated)

Estimate by BGS

Albania

1

4 1 6 3 Austria 4 4 2 1 5 2 18 7 Belgium

1 8 6 15 6

Bosnia & Herzegovina 15

15 1 Bulgaria

11

13 2 26 8

Croatia 3

3 1 7 5 Cyprus

7

7 1

Czech Republic

8

5

13 4 Denmark 5 1

1 7 3

Estonia 6

6 1 Finland 1

13 7 4 2 27 11

France

7 1 9 5 22 7 Germany

19 3 2 3 27 4

Greece

1 3 16 2 22 8 Greenland

1

1 2 2

Hungary

2

6 5 13 6 Iceland 1 1

2 2

Ireland

8

1

9 2 Italy 4

1 11 6 22 8

Kosovo

4 1 5 3 Latvia 2

1 3 6 3

Lithuania 4

4 1 Luxembourg 1

1 1 3 3

Macedonia (TFYR of) 9

4

13 2 Malta

0 0

Montenegro

7

3

10 2 Netherlands

1

2 5 3 11 6

Norway 1 1 9 6 3 2 22 11 Poland

1

27 3 31 5

Portugal

13 3 4 1 21 6 Romania

9

2 9 4 24 6

Serbia 4

9 2 15 6 Slovakia 1 2 13

1 1 18 5

Slovenia

7

5

12 5 Spain

27 3 10

40 7

Sweden

10 4 3 3 20 8 Switzerland

1 4 2 7 5

Turkey

17 19 36 8 Ukraine 8

2 5 7 22 4

United Kingdom 3 2

5 6 4 20 9

Table 1: Sources used for production data collected by BGS in 2013. Notes: * The Government Ministry category here represents those that are not also the National Geological Survey a) The numbers in the columns under the heading ‘Data sources for 2013 production data’ represent the quantities of individual pieces of data sourced from the category of data provider shown. These sum to the number shown in the ‘Quantity of commodities produced’ column. b) The pink shading highlights the major data providers, as explained in the following section. c) This table relates only to the commodities presented in the production sections of the European Minerals yearbook developed by the Minerals4EU project. There may be other commodities produced in the countries listed. Energy minerals (coal, oil, gas, uranium) are specifically excluded.

Page 9: Report on availability of mineral statistics

9 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Figure 1: Correlation between the number of commodities produced and the number of sources required to complete the production dataset

Data collection within country Clearly from the perspective of a data user the greater the quantity of data that can be received from a single source the easier, and therefore better, it is. This is ultimately the main benefit of compiling data into a Yearbook. For the data compiler the same applies; the more data sources that an organisation needs to contact in order to complete the dataset the longer the task will take and the greater the risk of problems occuring. For the 40 countries including in the Minerals4EU Yearbook, only 4 have a single source for production data – Bosnia & Herzegovina, Estonia and Lithuania (the national statistics office), and Cyprus (the geological survey). However, in many other cases there is one source that provides the majority of the data, albeit the data compiler has to also source data from other organisations. Examples include the national geological surveys of Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden; the national statistical offices of Denmark and Macedonia; and government ministries in Ireland and Bulgaria. These are shaded pink in Table 1.

Latvia

Austria

Belgium

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Switzerland

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Greenland

Hungary

Iceland Ireland

Italy

Kosovo Albania

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Malta

Montenegro

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal Romania Serbia

Slovakia Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Croatia

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Num

ber o

f diff

eren

t sou

rces

use

d

Quantity of commodities produced

Page 10: Report on availability of mineral statistics

10 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

3.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline)

Non-responses to data requests As with any survey that relies on a questionnaire, the most significant issue arises when the organisation contacted does not respond to the request. This same issue arises irrespective of the type of data or information being requested. Establishing a regular contact with an organisation is an obvious solution but to do so still requires a response from the data provider and even once established it does not represent a guarantee for future requests! Over many years BGS has developed many alternative sources for production data to fill gaps left by non-responses (as indicated by Table 1) and has developed methods for making estimates where alternative sources are not available. The quantity of BGS estimates in the final figures for 2013 represents one measure of the severity of this issue, shown graphically in Figure 2. The situation for Turkey stands out but this is due to data being provided for 2012 not 2013 as was requested. The generally low quantity of BGS estimates for most of the 40 countries covered by the Minerals4EU project is a reflection of length of time that BGS staff have been compiling these figures and the consequent experience gained. This has continuously broadened the network of contacts with data providers and enabled alternative data sources to be found in many cases. It is also a reflection of the high quality of data returned by most European countries.

Figure 2: Number of BGS estimates in 2013 production data by country

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Alba

nia

Aust

ria

Belg

ium

Bo

snia

& H

erze

govi

na

Bulg

aria

Cr

oatia

Cy

prus

Cz

ech

Repu

blic

De

nmar

k Es

toni

a Fi

nlan

d Fr

ance

Ge

rman

y Gr

eece

Gr

eenl

and

Hung

ary

Icel

and

Irela

nd

Italy

Ko

sovo

La

tvia

Li

thua

nia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mac

edon

ia (T

FYR

of)

Mal

ta

Mon

tene

gro

N

ethe

rland

s N

orw

ay

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Ro

man

ia

Serb

ia

Slov

akia

Sl

oven

ia

Spai

n Sw

eden

Sw

itzer

land

Tu

rkey

U

krai

ne

Uni

ted

King

dom

Num

ber o

f BG

S es

timat

es in

201

3 pr

oduc

tion

data

Page 11: Report on availability of mineral statistics

11 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

No central collation or incomplete collation For some countries, the reason behind the large number of different data sources is due to there being no requirement for central collation of mineral production statistics or the requirement only relates to certain minerals rather than all of them. Whilst this is undoubtedly a more significant issue for other data types (e.g. resources data) it does also occur with production data. In some cases the absence of data from a central point is due to restrictions imposed by national legislation to protect the commercial confidentiality of the few companies extracting a particular commodity. If these companies are publically listed, however, the data can usually be found in their annual reports to shareholders.

Multiple but different figures for the same commodity In some cases BGS requests production data from different sources for the same commodity and receives different figures. There are a number of potential reasons for this and these include (but are not limited to): preliminary versus final figures; figures with differing amounts of estimation; different degrees of rounding; later revisions or corrections; and the inclusion or not of small producers. Where this happens BGS staff have to make a decision regarding which figure to use. Often this can be determined using the level of precision, the date on which the figures were supplied, consistency in source used, or by establishing through detailed reading of any context supplied with the data including the specified commodity form, units, or other description supplied within a yearbook or website. However, in other cases it simply comes down to a choice and this is where staff experience is important.

3.3 Recommendations for future development • To minimise the number of BGS estimates that are required to complete the dataset, work

should continue, where necessary, to establish contact with new data providers within the countries concerned.

• Where there is already a data provider supplying the majority of the required statistics, discussions should take place to see if they can also supply data for any additional commodities needed.

• Where multiple sources supply different figures for the same commodity and the reason is unclear, discussions should take place with the data providers to attempt to understand the reasons and thus ensure the most accurate statistics are used.

4 Import and export data

4.1 Essential feedback These data were also collected by BGS again using long established BGS procedures. However, unlike production data, these data are purchased in bulk from an agency that specialises in monitoring trade information. These data are then compared to the United

Page 12: Report on availability of mineral statistics

12 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Nations (UN) commodity trade web-database, to Eurostat’s online database, or, in some cases, databases compiled by national statistical offices. These procedures speed up the process of gathering the volume of statistics needed to accurately portray the trade in minerals. However, discrepancies do occur between different sources of trade data and it can be difficult to determine which figure is the more accurate. Trade flows that are considered too small are frequently not included in the finalised tables in order to avoid them becoming cumbersome. No distinction is made between trade flows that are within Europe and those made to countries located outside of Europe.

4.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline)

Data resolution in trade code systems Import and export data are reported using a number of different systems of trade codes. The most commonly used is called the’ Harmonised System’ (often shorted to HS), also known as ‘Combined Nomenclature’ (CN), which is the system used by the UN and available from Eurostat. This system is built on a hierarchy such that higher level ‘chapters’ are sub-divided to provide greater detail on multiple levels (see Figure 3 for an example from the UN). Despite this structure, trade in many minerals cannot be separately distinguished, even at the greatest level of available detail. Some examples for metal ores and concentrates are provided in Table 2, based on the same chapter from UN as Figure 3.

Triangular trade This is the situation whereby country A exports a commodity to country B but B immediately re-exports the commodity to country C. Country A could record the trade as going to B or C; country C could record the trade as originating in A or B; and country B may not record it at all. This is one of the primary reasons why imports and exports rarely match. It is also why BGS publishes mineral trade statistics based unilaterally on the importing or exporting country and not as ‘paired’ trade figures. The same method of presenting trade statistics has been used in the new Yearbook developed under the Minerals4EU project.

Accuracy All reporting based on systems of codes relies on the person completing the return accurately and in a timely fashion. This requires an understanding of the code classification system and the written descriptions associated with the codes. In general trade statistics are compiled from individual customs declarations and should therefore have a high level of accuracy, however, it is not unusual for the different sources used by BGS to contain figures that vary significantly from each other.

Page 13: Report on availability of mineral statistics

13 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Figure 3: Example of trade code hierarchy for HS code system used by UN

Ores and concentrates containing

Incorporated within Code Description

Niobium 2615 90 Niobium, tantalum and vanadium ores and concentrates Tantalum 2615 90 Niobium, tantalum and vanadium ores and concentrates Vanadium 2615 90 Niobium, tantalum and vanadium ores and concentrates Gold 2616 90 Precious metal ores and concentrates except silver Platinum group metals 2616 90 Precious metal ores and concentrates except silver Bismuth 2617 90 Ores and concentrates, nes Cadmium 2617 90 Ores and concentrates, nes Lithium 2617 90 Ores and concentrates, nes Rare earths 2617 90 Ores and concentrates, nes

Table 2: Examples of commodities that cannot be separately differentiated within HS code system (“nes” means “not elsewhere specified”)

Chapter Four-digit level Six-digit level 26 Ores, slag and ash 2061 Iron ores and concentrates, roasted iron pyrites 2601 11 Iron ore, concentrate, not iron pyrites, unagglomerate 2061 12 Iron ore, concentrate, not iron pyrites, agglomerated 2061 20 Roasted iron pyrites 2062 Manganese ores, concentrates, iron ore >20% Manganese 2063 Copper ores and concentrates 2064 Nickel ores and concentrates 2605 Cobalt ores and concentrates 2606 Aluminium ores and concentrates 2607 Lead ores and concentrates 2608 Zinc ores and concentrates 2609 Tin ores and concentrates 2610 Chromium ores and concentrates 2611 Tungsten ores and concentrates 2612 Uranium or thorium ores and concentrates 2612 10 Uranium ores and concentrates 2612 20 Thorium ores and concentrates 2613 Molybdenum ores and concentrates 2614 Titanium ores and concentrates 2615 Niobium tantalum vanadium zirconium ores, concentrate 2615 10 Zirconium ores and concentrates 2615 90 Niobium, tantalum and vanadium ores and concentrates 2616 Precious metal ores and concentrates 2616 10 Silver ores and concentrates 2616 90 Precious metal ores and concentrates except silver 2617 Ores and concentrates, nes 2617 10 Antimony ores and concentrates 2617 90 Ores and concentrates, nes 2618 Granulated slag (slag sand) from iron and steel industry [further sub-division not shown] 2619 Waste, scale, dross, slag of iron and steel industry [further sub-division not shown] 2620 Metal containing ash or residue except iron or steel [further sub-division not shown] 2621 Slag and ash nes, including seaweed ash (kelp) [further sub-division not shown]

Page 14: Report on availability of mineral statistics

14 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

4.3 Recommendations for future development • The issue of data resolution is not likely to be solved in the short-term and it is likely to

require detailed discussions with the appropriate authorities. However, the mechanism for beginning this process should be investigated if this is deemed to be of sufficient importance.

5 Resources and reserves data

5.1 Essential feedback

General points Data for resources and reserves were collected for the first time during this project, using a questionnaire. The data returned is unfortunately incomplete and quite variable but nevertheless represents an important first step towards the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and consistent dataset covering all the countries of Europe. There have been a number of issues and challenges identified from this process, as listed below and discussed in more detail in section 5.2:

• the systems of reporting used to record these data • the usage of the terms ‘resources’ and ‘reserves’ • confidentiality of data • absence, or restriction, in the central collation of data • the names of the commodities used when recording the statistics

The responses received are shown in Table 3, together with the date on which the questionnaire arrived at BGS for central collation. Brief comments relating to the first four of these issues are included. The fifth item above is universal across all countries.

Feedback relating to the questionnaire One comment that was received at the stakeholder workshop held on 3 December 2014 was that the questionnaire itself was too long and complex and that a more streamlined version might elicit better responses. This would be hard to address because the data themselves are quite complex. Each number has an associated ‘system of reporting’, category under that system, a date of reporting, an average grade and a cut-off limit, in addition to the name of the commodity and the units. Furthermore, the systems of reporting are themselves updated from time to time and therefore each piece of data should really include the year on which the reporting system was laid down. For the first edition of the Yearbook, not all of the above aspects were captured and to do so would require an even more complex questionnaire. There will always have to be a balance between the accurate representation of the data and the time/knowledge needed to complete the questionnaire.

Page 15: Report on availability of mineral statistics

15 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Country Date questionnaire

received by BGS System(s) of reporting Clear distinction in the use of the terms 'resources' and 'reserves'? Confidentiality issues? Central collation?

Albania 07/01/2015 National reporting code No clear distinction, only one supplied believed to be resources None stated Data collection is statutory but multiple

data sources quoted

Austria 10/11/2014 None OK Confidentiality is a big issue, data available for one commodity only

Data provision is voluntary only, not annual and sent to Federal Ministry

Belgium not returned Bosnia & Herzegovina not returned Bulgaria not returned

Croatia 23/01/2015 National reporting code Only reserves supplied but original document refers to ‘resources’ so distinction is not completely clear

None stated Data collection is statutory and annual

Cyprus 26/11/2014 None Queried and clarified during data survey; terms used are 'known' and 'estimated' in both tables

None stated Data collection is statutory and annual

Czech Republic 16/09/2014 National reporting code OK None stated Data collection is statutory and annual

Denmark 11/11/2014 None OK None stated There is no central collation, data available for a limited range of commodities only

Estonia 17/11/2014 National reporting code OK None stated Data collection is statutory and quarterly

Finland 24/09/2014 A mixture including JORC, FRB, NI43-101 and historic estimates

OK Not for metals, but this is an issue for industrial minerals

Central collation currently for metals only not industrial minerals

France 17/02/2015 Historic resource estimates only

OK although only resource information available Possibly

No regular central collation, data available for limited range of commodities and resources only

Germany 28/11/2014 No information available No information available Possibly

Data collated at 'state' level not 'federal' level, data collection may not be regular nor complete

Greece 28/11/2014 USGS for resources, CIM for reserves OK None stated Data collection is statutory and annual

Greenland 17/12/2014 A mixture of JORC, NI43-101 and 'none' OK, but only resources data returned None stated Data collection is statutory and

quarterly Table 3 continued overleaf

Page 16: Report on availability of mineral statistics

16 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Country Date questionnaire received by BGS System(s) of reporting Clear distinction in the use of the

terms 'resources' and 'reserves'? Confidentiality issues? Central collation?

Hungary 28/11/2014 Russian classification Only resources returned, no data for reserves None stated Data collection for resources only is

statutory and annual Iceland not returned

Ireland 19/01/2015 A mixture of JORC and historical estimates OK Yes, a few commodities are

confidential

No central collation, some data reported on an ad hoc basis, but not for construction minerals

Italy 04/03/2015 None, estimated data only

Terms used include 'sub-economic' for 'resources' table and 'estimated' or 'official' for reserves table

None stated Data collection is statutory and annual, but only published sources are used

Kosovo 01/12/2014 National reporting code and historical estimates

Unclear; historic estimates only for resources, more detailed classification used for reserves

None stated Data collection is statutory and annual

Latvia 05/02/2015 National reporting code Only resources returned; terms used are 'explored deposits' and 'evaluated deposits'

None stated No information provided

Lithuania 15/01/2015 None Only the resources table completed, comment suggests definition of 'reserves' may be unclear

None stated Data collection is statutory, but timescale quoted as variable

Luxembourg 16/09/2014 No information available No information available None stated No central collation takes place because

activity is limited

Macedonia (TFYR of) 22/01/2015 Ex-Yugoslavian code (based on the Russian classification)

Identical figures supplied under 'resource' heading and 'reserve' heading

None stated Data collection is statutory and annual

Malta 16/09/2014 No information available No information available None stated There is no central collation and limited

activity Montenegro not returned

Netherlands 16/09/2014 None Probably OK but resource only returned for just one commodity None stated

There is no central collation and no statutory requirement for resource or reserve data to be provided

Norway 28/11/2014 A mixture of JORC, NI43-101, historical estimates and 'none'

OK None stated Statutory but collection is not comprehensive

Table 3 continued overleaf

Page 17: Report on availability of mineral statistics

17 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Country Date questionnaire received by BGS System(s) of reporting Clear distinction in the use of the

terms 'resources' and 'reserves'? Confidentiality issues? Central collation?

Poland 17/10/2014

National reporting code; details according to Polish law also provided

Terms used are 'anticipated economic resources' (for resources) and 'industrial resources' (for reserves)

None stated

Data collection is statutory; data for exploited deposits are collected annually and data for non-exploited deposits are collected regularly

Portugal 20/11/2014 A mixture of NI43-101 and historical estimates OK None stated

Annual reporting is compulsory but inclusion of resources and reserves data is not

Romania 28/11/2014 UNFC OK None stated Data collection is statutory and annual but figures provided are from published literature only

Serbia not returned

Slovakia 05/11/2014

'None' although it might be a National Reporting Code as categories are specified

Queried and clarified during survey; categories used include 'verified', 'probable' and 'anticipated' in both resources and reserve tables; resources include 'sub-economic'

Data for individual mines or companies are confidential. Data on a national scale are available.

Data collection is statutory and annual

Slovenia 16/09/2014 National code for resources, UNFC for reserves

Terms used are 'potentially economic reserves' (for resources) and 'economic reserves' (for reserves)

None stated Data collection is statutory and annual

Spain 01/12/2014

A mixture, mainly NI43-101 but also with historical estimates and 'various'

Generally OK, although for industrial minerals the terms ‘reserves’ is used in the 'resources' table as well as the 'reserves' table

None stated Data collection is annual but voluntary; regular collation may be regional rather than central

Sweden 28/11/2014 A mixture of JORC, FRB, NI43-101 and historic estimates

OK None stated No specific organisation with statutory responsibility; collation by SGU on an ongoing voluntary basis

Switzerland 12/01/2015 None No reporting standards Possibly No requirement to report centrally Turkey not returned Ukraine 28/11/2014 Russian classification OK None stated Data collection is statutory and annual

UK 25/11/2014 A mixture of JORC, NI43-101 and new or historical estimates

OK Data for some commodities are confidential

No requirement to report centrally, some reporting happens on an ad hoc basis

Table 3: Summary of responses received for resources and reserves based on the questionnaires returned (as at 30 April 2015)

Page 18: Report on availability of mineral statistics

18 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Timeliness of questionnaire returns The dates on which the questionnaires were received by BGS for central collation are shown in Table 3, albeit in some cases the questionnaires were completed and returned to another WP4 partner earlier than shown. This demonstrates the importance of setting an early deadline for the completion of a questionnaire and this point is also illustrated graphically in Figure 4. Of the 33 questionnaires returned, 10 of them (or 30%) arrived as the deadline approached with 7 of these arriving on the last working day before the deadline. Two further questionnaires arrived on the first working day after the deadline date. These dates also indicate the importance of continuing to chase for completed questionnaires after a closing date has passed because 13 questionnaires (or 39%) have been received since the deadline expired. This latter point was anticipated and represents the reason that the date was set as the end of November 2014 rather than, say, end of February 2015.

Figure 4 Dates of returned resources and reserves questionnaires, in comparison to the deadline that was set

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Up

to

30/9

/14

1/10

/14

to

15/1

0/14

16/1

0/14

to

31/1

0/14

1/11

/14

to

15/1

1/14

16/1

1/14

to

30/1

1/14

1/12

/14

to

15/1

2/14

16/1

2/14

to

31/1

2/14

1/1/

15 to

15

/1/1

5

16/1

/15

to

31/1

/15

1/2/

15 to

14

/2/1

5

15/2

/15

to

28/2

/15

Afte

r 1/3

/15

Num

ber o

f ret

urne

d qu

estio

nnai

res

Deadline 30/11/2014

Page 19: Report on availability of mineral statistics

19 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

5.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline)

Definition of key terms As indicated in Table 3, there is no individual definition for the terms ‘resource’ and ‘reserve’ that is common across all the countries included in the Yearbook. This means that comparing the statistical data between countries is impossible because a mineral deposit that might be considered a ‘resource’ in one country might be called a ‘reserve’ in another and may not be included at all in a third. This is a significant issue that has to be addressed before any moves towards standardisation will be possible. It is also connected with the issue of variability in the systems of reporting considered in the next sub-section because all internationally recognised systems of reporting include a clear distinction between these two terms.

Internationally recognised systems of reporting Resources and reserves data are by their very nature more complicated than, say, production figures. The operator of a deposit can only know for sure how much mineral was contained within a deposit once it has been worked out and consequently there is always a degree of estimation involved. Most countries use a classification system to sub-divide their resources and/or reserves into different categories to reflect the level of uncertainty associated with the figures. These levels of uncertainty are primarily a consequence of the degree of geological knowledge (which improves as exploration activities progress), but may also reflect economic feasibility (which depends on the price obtainable for the commodities concerned) and other factors such as permitting and/or licencing procedures, social acceptability or environmental implications. The classification systems used for reporting statistics for resources and reserves are not consistent across the countries covered by the European Minerals Yearbook. Some countries have developed a ‘national reporting code’, or adapted a system of reporting from another source, which addresses their individual needs and requirements. Other countries utilise one or more of the internationally recognised systems of reporting, which are often required by stock exchanges or financial investors. In other countries ‘resources’ may not have been estimated in accordance with any system of reporting, or data exists which are categorised only as ‘historical estimates’. These have been included in the Yearbook because they indicate firstly that a particular commodity does exist within that country and secondly because they give a broad indication of the quantity that may be involved. Where known, the system of reporting used for the resources and reserves data included in the Yearbook is stated alongside the statistics. However, due to the variations in these systems of reporting, it is inappropriate to sum the resource and reserve data to determine national or European totals because the figures may not be directly comparable. Additional complicated factors involved when recording statistics for resources and reserves are the variations in ‘cut off grades’ used for certain deposits, revisions to the internationally recognised systems of reporting (e.g. JORC), the calculation of ‘weighted average grade’ and the units used both for the statistics themselves and the grade.

Page 20: Report on availability of mineral statistics

20 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

If resource and reserve data are to be compared across countries or if a Europe-wide combined figure is considered necessary, then the reported data needs to be presented in a standardised format. This means that all the different systems of reporting used by individual countries need to be mapped to a common system of reporting. From the 33 questionnaires returned, 30 contained statistical data for resources and/or reserves. In many cases more than one system of reporting is in use within a single country. Eight countries reported using either the Australasian ‘Joint ore reserves committee’ (JORC) system or the Canadian National Instrument 43-101 system (NI 43-101), both of which are aligned with the ‘Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards’ Template (CRIRSCO). The Pan-European Reporting Code (PERC) is also aligned with the CRIRSCO Template. Many other systems of reporting have a ‘bridging document’ in place which indicates how categories within these systems correlate to the CRIRSCO Template categories. For example, two countries reported using ‘United Nations Framework Classification’ (UNFC) system and two the ‘Russian system’ and for both of these a bridging document exists. Even where a bridging document exists, performing the conversion of resource and reserves statistics from one system of reporting to another is not a simple task. It requires the attention of a ‘Competent Person’ with appropriate levels of qualification.

Commodity names If statistical data for resources and reserves are to be compared between countries, then it would seem obvious that a standardised list of names for the commodities should be produced and adhered to by all countries. Ideally the same list would also be used across all data types albeit with the possibility of differing levels of detail between the data types. It was not known at the start of the Minerals4EU project how much of an issue this would be but for resources and reserves data it has proved to be of some significance. Without such a standardised list it is very difficult to compare ‘like’ with ‘like’. This issue was addressed in the European MineralsYearbook by applying a ‘group commodity’, ‘commodity’ and ‘sub-commodity’ hierarchy to the statistics (as shown in Table 4). In this hierarchy:

• the ‘group commodity’ is used to generate the list of commodities available for a user to select from the Yearbook front page;

• the ‘commodity’ is used to determine how the graphics are generated (needed in particular for production and trade data); and

• the ‘sub-commodity’ names includes all the variation in names returned on questionnaires.

In some cases the differences in commodity names are due to variations in spelling, for example ‘barytes’ and ‘barite’, but in other cases the names suggest that different materials are included and consequently the figures cannot be directly compared. The situation does appear to be more complicated for industrial or construction minerals than for metals and this is probably because industrial and construction minerals are often defined partially by their

Page 21: Report on availability of mineral statistics

21 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

end use rather than entirely by their composition. For example, the same deposit of limestone could be used for construction aggregates and for a range of industrial uses as ‘calcium carbonate’ – some countries may separate the resource in this case while others do not. Table 4 includes a selection of the commodity names only, the full list is many times longer. Group commodity name Commodity name Sub-commodity name

Aggregates and related materials

Aggregates and related materials

Limestone for aggregate Decorative limestone Limestone, ornamental Limestone for lime Rocks for cement Limestone for boulders Decorative stone Cement raw materials Limestone for cement Limestone for paper and sugar Fresh water limestone

Bentonite and fuller's earth

Bentonite Bentonite

Fuller's earth

Fuller's earth Attapulgite Sepiolite Paligorskite

Lead Lead

Lead ores Lead in zinc-lead ores Lead co-occuring in copper ores Lead - sub economic

Nickel Nickel

Ferro-nickel Nickel silicate Nickel sulphide Nickel ore Nickel in nickel ore

Silica Silica

Silica sand Industrial sand Silica minerals Quartz sand Moulding sand Foundry sands Refractory quartzites

Table 4: Examples of the commodity names returned in questionnaires and the hierarchy applied during the preparation of the Yearbook.

Page 22: Report on availability of mineral statistics

22 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Although a number of different commodity ‘code lists’ or ‘classification codes’ exist, no agreement could be reached during the project on which of these represents the most satisfactory list for the Yearbook.

Collection and collation of data The requirement to collect resources and reserves data (whether at local, regional or national level) is not universal across all countries. Similarly the requirement to centrally collate these data is not common to all countries. For the purposes of compiling a European Minerals Yearbook, central collation of resource and/or reserves data on a national level is clearly desirable. From the 33 questionnaires returned as part of the Minerals4EU project, 14 countries indicated that this central collation takes place on a statutory (i.e. compulsory) basis either annually or more frequently. This represents just 43% of the 33 countries that returned questionnaires. A further 7 countries (21%) were either unclear or indicated there are some issues with central collation that may affect its comprehensiveness. The remaining 12 countries (36%) indicated there is no requirement to collect data centrally. In some countries the devolution of authority or responsibility to regional or provincial governments within a country makes central collation difficult. For example, Germany operates a ‘federal constitution’ which means the decision of whether to collect these data or not, how to collect them and when to do so is entirely the responsibility of the sixteen Bundesländer (or states). Similarly in Switzerland, the 26 cantons have been granted autonomy with regards to the regulation and management of mineral resources and as a result these cantons currently have no obligation to collect resources or reserves data, nor to report them to the federal government. In other countries (for example the United Kingdom, Ireland or France) this central collation has been attempted by the national geological survey during 2014 specifically for the purpose of completing the Minerals4EU questionnaire. There is currently no incentive for these countries to repeat this process in future years. Whether this central collation of resources and reserves data happens is entirely due to the requirements of each individual country’s national laws and policies. There can be no compulsion for a sovereign state to change its national laws; this will only happen if those countries choose to do so. The benefits of collecting these data and collating them centrally need to be clearly demonstrated.

Confidentiality The suppression of figures, or the non-availability of data, due to confidentiality was expected to be a significant issue. In reality only a few countries specifically mentioned it as a reason for data not being available in the questionnaires (Austria for most commodities, Finland for industrial minerals, Ireland and the United Kingdom for a few commodities each). Other countries indicated that data are confidential at an individual mine or company level but data are available at a consolidated national level. It is possible that other countries may have simply omitted commodities from the tables without specifically stating that confidentiality was an issue. In some cases a restriction in availability of data for other reasons, such as the

Page 23: Report on availability of mineral statistics

23 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

absence of central collation, has occurred before the confidentiality issue can be considered (for example in France, Germany or Switzerland). Confidentiality of data at national level becomes a problem where there are only one or two producers of a particular commodity within that country and those producers are not publically listed companies. In these cases, commercial sensitivity and the importance of maintaining competition may prevent organisations from either collecting or publishing statistical data that could identify an individual company.

5.3 Recommendations for future development Definition of terms

• A common definition of the terms ‘resources’ and ‘reserves’ is needed so that all countries are understanding the same thing when those terms are used. This may be addressed in conjunction with the next bullet point because internationally recognised systems of reporting all have a clear distinction between these terms.

System of reporting • Agreement needs to be reached between the countries for a common system of

reporting to be adopted specifically for use in the Yearbook. Perhaps this should be PERC (the Pan-European Reserves and Resources Reporting Committee) standard which is aligned with the CRIRSCO template. Individual countries, or the companies operating in those countries, may choose to continue with a national reporting code, or a different internationally recognised system of reporting, for their own internal purposes if they wish but would be requested to supply their data for the Yearbook in accordance with the adopted system of reporting.

• Once a common system of reporting has been adopted for the Yearbook, each country will need to examine how their resource and reserve statistics can be ‘mapped’ to that common system and a bridging document should be written if one does not already exist.

• A person (or persons) with an appropriate level of competency would be required to carry out such ‘mapping’ and additional training of staff within key countries may be required to develop and undertake this exercise. Support from other European organisations may be necessary to conduct or assist with this training.

Commodity names • The grouping hierarchy used for the first edition of Yearbook should be considered a

temporary measure and a greater standardisation of commodity names should occur. • A number of commodity ‘code lists’ or ‘classification codes’ are in existence for

different purposes (including for spatial data under the INSPIRE directive and the Harmonised system codes for mineral trade) but it is not clear which of these is the most satisfactory. There needs to be a detailed discussion between experts in the countries producing those commodities, together possibly with data users, to establish an agreed list of commodities to be included in the Yearbook in future. This list may need to include an agreed description or definition for certain commodity names.

Collection, collation and presentation of data • The benefits of central collation of data should be demonstrated and publicised to all

countries, both those that currently undertake it and those that do not.

Page 24: Report on availability of mineral statistics

24 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

• There can be no compulsion for a sovereign state to change its national laws, therefore other ideas for encouraging central collation should be explored.

• The goal should be established of presenting as much data as possible in accordance with internationally recognised standards. Over time this will lead to greater consistency between countries and eventually lead to a standardised dataset.

• The inclusion of calculated commodity content, in addition to tonnage and grade, should be considered, where possible, because this would help to facilitate the inclusion of summary figures for Europe as a whole.

Confidentiality • This has, perhaps surprisingly, not been as big an issue as was originally expected.

However, the reasons behind the specific instances where it occurs are not fully understood and should be explored and discussed further.

6 Exploration data

6.1 Essential feedback Data for exploration activities were collected for the first time during this project, using a questionnaire. The data returned is unfortunately incomplete and quite variable but nevertheless represents an important first step towards the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and consistent dataset covering all the countries of Europe. The exploration questionnaire requested data relating to six different metrics because it was not clear which countries would be able to provide data for each metric. Table 5 provides the detail of which metrics were supplied on each of the 29 questionnaires returned.

Country Expenditure Number of

licences active in 2013

Number of licences

issued in 2013

Area under licences at the

end of 2013

Number of companies

Activity summary

Albania PART Y Y Y Y N Austria N N N N N N Belgium Not returned Bosnia & Herzegovina Not returned Bulgaria Not returned Croatia TOTAL Y Y Y Y Y Cyprus PART Y Y Y Y Y Czech Republic N Y Y Y Y N Denmark N N N N N N Estonia N Y Y Y Y Y Finland TOTAL N TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Y France Not returned Germany N N N N N N Greece Y Y Y Y N Y

Table 5 continued on next page

Page 25: Report on availability of mineral statistics

25 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Country Expenditure Number of

licences active in 2013

Number of licences

issued in 2013

Area under licences at the

end of 2013

Number of companies

Activity summary

Greenland Y Y N Y Y N Hungary N Y Y Y Y Y Iceland Not returned Ireland PART Y Y Y Y Y Italy Not returned Kosovo N Y Y Y Y N Latvia Not returned Lithuania Not returned Luxembourg N N N N N N Macedonia (TFYR of) Y Y Y Y Y Y Malta NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL Montenegro Not returned Netherlands N Y Y Y Y Y Norway Y PART PART PART Y Y Poland N Y Y Y Y N Portugal TOTAL Y Y Y Y Y Romania N Y N N Y N Serbia Not returned Slovakia N Y Y Y Y N Slovenia N N N N PART Y Spain Y Y Y Y Y N Sweden TOTAL N Y Y Y N Switzerland PART PART PART PART Y N Turkey Not returned Ukraine N Y Y N Y Y United Kingdom PART PART PART PART Y Y

Total (number of countries) Yes, provided 5 18 17 17 21 14 No, not provided 14 7 7 7 5 14 Provided in part 5 3 3 3 1 0 Total only provided 4 0 1 1 1 0 Nil 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total returned 29 29 29 29 29 29

Table 5: Summary of responses received for each exploration metric, based on the questionnaires returned (as at 30 April 2015). Y = Yes, data for this metric were supplied, N = No, data for this metric not supplied, PART = data for this metric were available but were incomplete, TOTAL = data for individual commodities not available but totals for the country were provided, NIL = no exploration activity ongoing.

Page 26: Report on availability of mineral statistics

26 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

As shown in Table 5, the most commonly available metric is the number of companies actively exploring within a country. This is followed by the number of active exploration licences, the number of new exploration licences issued and the area of land under exploration licence. The metric which was least available was the expenditure incurred in exploration and this was primarily for confidentiality reasons. The activity summary was a free text box enabling the compiler to write an unrestricted description of current activities if they wished. Some guidance was provided on the questionnaire relating to the scale and nature of activities that could be described. Metadata was also requested on the exploration questionnaire and a summary of the responses to some of these questions is provided in Table 6. This clearly demonstrates the variability that exists between, and in some cases within, countries with regards to the systems used to regulate exploration activities.

Country Is there a Licensing system?

Is it a National or Regional system?

Is there a minimum spend?

Is there a requirement to report centrally?

Albania Yes, same for all minerals National Yes Yes, but frequency

unknown

Austria Yes, but varies by mineral

National for certain minerals, Regional for others

No No

Belgium not returned

Bosnia & Herzegovina not returned

Bulgaria not returned

Croatia Yes, same for all minerals National No Yes, annually

Cyprus Yes, same for all minerals National Yes Yes, at the end

Czech Republic Yes, but varies by mineral National No Yes, annually and at

the end

Denmark Yes, but marine is different from land-based minerals

Marine is national, land-based is regional

No Yes, at the end of the 1 year license

Estonia Yes, but varies by mineral

National for certain minerals, Regional for others

No Yes, at the end

Finland Yes, but varies by mineral National No

Yes, annually, and within 6 months of expiry

France not returned

Germany Yes, but varies by mineral Regional Unknown Yes, but frequency

unknown

Greece Yes, but varies by mineral National Yes Yes, at the end

Greenland Yes, but varies by mineral National Yes Yes, annually

Hungary Yes, same for all minerals National Possibly Yes, within 5 months

of the end Iceland not returned

Table 6 continued on next page

Page 27: Report on availability of mineral statistics

27 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Country Is there a Licensing system?

Is it a National or Regional system?

Is there a minimum spend?

Is there a requirement to report centrally?

Ireland Yes for most minerals but not for aggregates

National Yes Yes, every 2 years for the first six years

Italy not returned

Kosovo Yes, same for all minerals National Yes Yes, annually

Latvia not returned

Lithuania not returned

Luxembourg No N/a No No

Macedonia (TFYR of) Yes, same for all minerals National No Yes, annually

Malta No N/a No No

Montenegro not returned

Netherlands Yes, same for all minerals National No Yes, but frequency

unknown

Norway Yes, but varies by mineral National No Yes, annually

Poland Yes, but varies by mineral National Possibly Yes, quarterly and

annually

Portugal Yes, but varies by mineral National No Yes, 6 monthly

Romania Yes, same for all minerals National Unknown Yes, 6 monthly and at

the end Serbia not returned

Slovakia Yes, but varies by mineral National Yes Yes, annually

Slovenia Yes, same for all minerals National Unknown Yes, but frequency

unknown

Spain Yes, but varies by mineral

National (but licences issued by Regional authority)

No Yes, annually

Sweden Yes, same for all minerals National No Yes, within 3 months

of the end

Switzerland No Regional No Not on a national level

Turkey not returned

Ukraine Yes, same for all minerals National Variable and

confidential Yes, annually

United Kingdom

No, except for precious metals, offshore minerals and for Northern Ireland

National for precious metals and offshore, Regional for Northern Ireland

No, except in Northern Ireland

Yes but only where licenses are issued, these are annual

Table 6: Summary of selected metadata questions returned on exploration questionnaires Of the 29 countries that returned an exploration questionnaire, 25 have some form of licencing system but 14 of those systems vary according to the mineral concerned, or

Page 28: Report on availability of mineral statistics

28 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

according to the location of the exploration, or do not apply to all groups of minerals. Luxembourg and Malta replied that they do not have a licensing system but in both countries mineral exploration activities are limited. In Switzerland the decision of whether to licence mineral exploration is devolved to the individual Cantons. Within the United Kingdom there is a licencing system for precious metals, which are considered the property of the Crown, and for offshore minerals because the sea floor is owned by the Crown. There is a separate system for regulating exploration in Northern Ireland, where licences are issued by a regional authority. Otherwise mineral exploration can be carried out upon receipt of permission from the land owner. In total 20 of the licensing systems are national, 2 are regional while the remainder appear to be a mixture of national and regional elements. The majority of licensing systems (15 of the total reported) do not have a minimum expenditure requirement, while seven do specify a minimum spend. However, a greater majority of countries (24 of the 29 returned) have a requirement by which companies have to report on their exploration activities, although the frequency of that reporting varies widely.

6.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline)

Availability of data The completion of a questionnaire of this nature, when there is no licensing system for mineral exploration is clearly difficult. For the purposes of this project, both Switzerland and the United Kingdom have attempted to pull together what information can be found in those countries but in neither case can the data be comprehensive. Even in other countries where a licensing system does exist, the variations in procedures by commodity type and the issue of confidentiality reduces the completeness of data. Each nation will develop its own rules and procedures according to the laws and regulations that exist in each country. Whilst there can be no compulsion for a sovereign state to change its national laws, the existence of a Yearbook that attempts to compile these data may in itself provide an encouragement for countries to establish procedures that enable them to collate these data centrally. This may or may not involve formal licensing procedures but would clearly be easier where such a system exists.

Inconsistency in use of different metrics At the beginning of this project it was not clear what metrics would be available for measuring exploration activities. As shown by the returned questionnaires, there is considerable variability between, and sometimes within, countries. This makes it difficult to draw reliable conclusions, to compare countries or to provide an overall summary for the position in Europe as a whole. In particular it is not possible to provide an overall estimate of the expenditure incurred across Europe as a result of exploration for any individual mineral. Again, whilst there can be no compulsion for nations to collect all or any of these exploration metrics, the existence of the Yearbook may encourage more countries to collect increasingly comprehensive data.

Page 29: Report on availability of mineral statistics

29 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Exploration for groups of minerals The nature of mineral exploration is such that often companies do not know precisely which elements or minerals they are likely to find until they have commenced the work, particularly if the exploration is a an early stage. Often the companies can only specify a group of commodities that they are exploring for and the stated list can be quite long. In addition, certain minerals frequently occur together and it is not normally clear in which proportions they will be discovered. As a consequence, licensing for exploration is frequently not for a single mineral but a group of minerals. This creates difficulties in how these are accurately presented in the European Mineral Yearbook because a single license, area and company could be recorded multiple times for different mineral commodities. For the first edition of the Yearbook, exploration for groups of minerals has been duplicated so that each individual commodity can be shown separately. Therefore it is not appropriate to sum the rows of data presented ‘by country’ as this will result in an over-statement of the actual exploration activity ongoing.

6.3 Recommendations for future development • It is recommended that all six metrics continue to be requested in future updates of the

European Minerals Yearbook, for the foreseeable future. In time it may be possible to remove some of them, particularly if the data for expenditure becomes more comprehensive. But in the meantime, having a range of metrics is useful to, firstly, demonstrate that exploration is ongoing for particular minerals and, secondly, to give some indication of the scale of the exploration.

7 Waste flow data

7.1 Essential feedback

Data collection and data sources Although secondary raw materials were not the primary focus of the Minerals4EU project, Work Package 4 (WP4) committed to identify and report statistical data on mineral-based waste. The following data categories were collected by BGS:

• types and quantities of mineral-based waste generated and treated; • waste treatment routes and quantitative flows of materials in different treatment; • trade data on identified mineral-based waste categories; • number and capacity of treatment facilities; • waste generated from mining and quarrying activities.

Through a desk based review, WP4 identified that the majority of these data are publicly available and it was therefore being decided that they will be collated from public sources rather than from an additional survey. The data sources used are:

Page 30: Report on availability of mineral statistics

30 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

• Eurostat database – waste statistics • Eurostat trade data – EasyComext database • National databases and publications (from National Environment Agencies, Ministries

of Environment, etc) • Metadata from the Minventory project • Country factsheets on waste policies – European Environment Information and

Observation Network (eionet) • Country assessments – European Environment Agency

The Eurostat waste statistics was a major contributor to data reported on waste flows primarily due to the spatial coverage offered and the availability of data covering most of the data categories this stream of work has addressed. Also, existing data collection, classification and reporting protocols set by Eurostat have resulted in the publication of harmonised and comparable data. Although the Eurostat waste statistics data are available and accessible, the extraction of data relevant to mineral-based waste and the reporting of these flows alongside statistics of primary raw materials have not been attempted in the past and it is seen as a way forward for developing a single minerals yearbook covering both primary and secondary raw materials. With regards to spatial coverage, Table 7 showcases the countries for which waste flow data are reported in the European Minerals Yearbook. In this analysis the same countries as for the primary raw materials were considered. Countries in the white cells have complete datasets available through the Eurostat waste statistics database. For countries shown in the yellow cells datasets are available but incomplete.

Albania Austria Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic

Denmark Estonia Finland France

Germany Greece Greenland Hungary

Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo

Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia (FYROM)

Malta Montenegro Netherlands Norway

Poland Portugal Romania Serbia

Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden

Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom

Table 7: Waste flows data availability to be reported in the Minerals Yearbook Notes: Greenland: only limited trade data are available, Albania: only limited data availability; Montenegro: only 2012 statistics on waste generation are available from Eurostat; Bosnia and Herzegovina: only data on waste generation are available from Eurostat; Kosovo: only 2012 statistics on waste generation are available from Eurostat; Switzerland: only some data on waste generation and recycling are available from national waste statistics; Ukraine only 2012 waste statistics are available.

Page 31: Report on availability of mineral statistics

31 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Overall complete datasets are available for 34 out of 40 countries included in this study through the Eurostat waste statistics. Data in the European Minerals Yearbook will be reported for two years 2010 and 2012. The waste categories have been identified as mineral-based are shown in Table 8 and data for these will be reported in the European Minerals Yearbook. These waste categories are based on the European Waste Catalogue Classification for statistical purposes (EWC-Stat). The EWC-Stat is a substance–oriented aggregation of the waste types defined in the European List of Wastes (LoW)2

.

EWC-Stat code Description 06.1 Metallic waste, ferrous

(e.g mill scales, discarded moulds, filings and turnings, ferrous metal, iron and steel )

06.2 Metallic waste, non-ferrous (e.g aluminium, copper, brass, bronze, zinc, tin, lead and other non-ferrous waste)

06.3 Metallic waste, mixed ferrous and non-ferrous (e.g metallic packaging, mixed metallic wastes)

07.1 Glass waste (e.g glass packaging waste, other glass waste )

08.1 Discarded vehicles (e.g end-of life vehicles)

08.2 Discarded electrical and electronic equipment (e.g discarded electrical and electronic equipment, other discarded machines and equipment components)

08.41 Batteries and accumulators wastes (e.g alkaline batteries, lead batteries, Ni-Cd batteries, mercury containing batteries, other batteries and accumulators)

12.1 Mineral waste from construction and demolition (e.g concrete, bricks, ceramic tiles, track ballast, road surfacing waste)

12.2+12.3+12.5 Other mineral wastes (e.g waste of naturally occurring minerals, artificial mineral waste, waste refractory materials, waste with asbestos)

12.4 Combustion wastes (e.g flue gas purification waste, slags and ashes )

12.7 Dredging spoils 12.8+13 Mineral wastes from waste treatment and stabilised wastes

(e.g waste treatment waste (i.e. ashes), solidified or stabilised waste, vitrified waste)

Table 8: Waste categories and associated EWC-Stat codes included in the European Minerals Yearbook produced by the Minerals4EU project. 2 Commission Decision 2001/118/EC of 16 January 2001 amending Decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes

Page 32: Report on availability of mineral statistics

32 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Data on waste generation Waste generation figures found in the Eurostat database are broken down by source (several business activities according to the NACE3

classification and household activities) and by waste categories (according to the EWC-Stat classification). Waste generation figures presented in the European Minerals Yearbook correspond to the total figure from all production and consumption activities as described by NACE rev.2 classification (Table 9) with the exception of production activities linked to waste management.

Production activities Agriculture, forestry and fishing Mining and quarrying Manufacture of food products; beverages and tobacco products Manufacture of textiles, wearing apparel, leather and related products Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials Manufacture of paper and paper products; printing and reproduction of recorded media Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products Manufacture of chemical, pharmaceutical, rubber and plastic products Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products Manufacture of basic metals and fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products, electrical equipment, motor vehicles and other transport equipment Manufacture of furniture; jewellery, musical instruments, toys; repair and installation of machinery and equipment Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Water collection, treatment and supply; sewerage; remediation activities and other waste management services Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery Construction Services (except wholesale of waste and scrap) Wholesale of waste and scrap Consumption activities Households Table 9: Production activities and consumption activities in the NACE rev.2 classification. Activities in grey are linked to waste management and will produce secondary waste. Three of the production activities (shown in grey in Table 9) are linked to the waste management and will contain secondary waste. Because waste generated by activities of waste treatment facilities (secondary waste) is also reported under waste generation in the Eurostat database, this in effect means that double counting is inherent in the Eurostat waste generation figures. Waste generation figures provided in the European Minerals Yearbook have excluded secondary waste to avoid this double counting in the reported 3 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace-rev2/overview

Page 33: Report on availability of mineral statistics

33 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

figures. However, in the graphical representation (Sankey diagrams) shown for each country, the secondary waste is presented in the flows (where it is labelled as residual waste).

Data on waste treatment The Directive 2008/98/EC4

4

defines waste treatment as the generic term for all recovery or disposal operations, including preparation prior to recovery or disposal. In the European Minerals Yearbook information on waste treatment is derived from the Eurostat database. This information is broken down into five waste treatment types :

• Recovery (excluding energy recovery) (operations R2 to R11 as defined in Annex II of the Directive 2008/98/EC);

• Energy recovery (operations R1 as defined in Annex II of the Directive 2008/98/EC); • Incineration (operations D10 as defined in Annex I of the Directive 2008/98/EC); • Disposal on land (operations D1, D3, D4, D5, D12 as defined in Annex I of the

Directive 2008/98/EC); • Land treatment/ release into water: (operations D2, D6, D7 as defined in Annex II of

the Directive 2008/98/EC). Data on waste treatment correspond to the total amount of waste entering recovery and disposal facilities for final treatment. Recovery means any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy4. In case of recovery, final treatment is either the incineration of waste for energy recovery, or the treatment steps where the waste ceases to be waste because it is turned into a product or is used in another way where it replaces primary material5

.

Recycling is defined as any recovery operation, by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations4. In the case of recycling, the final treatment corresponds to production facilities for instance, paper mills, glass works, metal works and plastic converters5. Disposal means any operation which is not recovery even where the operation has, as a secondary consequence, the reclamation of substances or energy4. In case of disposal, the final treatment most of the time refers to thermal treatment or the final deposit in a landfill5. Preparatory treatment operations are excluded from disposal and recovery operations, as well as internal recycling operations (that is waste that is recycled on the site where the waste is generated is not reported4).

4 Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3), replacing Directive 2006/12/EC on waste as of 12 Dec. 2010. 5 Eurostat (2013), Manual on Waste Statistics. A handbook for data collection on waste generation and treatment, 2013 edition, URL< http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5926045/KS-RA-13-015-EN.PDF/055ad62c-347b-4315-9faa-0a1ebcb1313e?version=1.0 >, Access date:[13/02/2015]

Page 34: Report on availability of mineral statistics

34 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Trade data on waste Trade data on waste are more difficult to track as they are not part of the Eurostat waste statistics database. Transboundary shipments of waste at international level are regulated by the Basel Convention6, which requires parties to provide prior notification before shipping hazardous and certain other wastes across international borders. In Europe, the Basel Convention is transposed by the EU Waste Shipment Regulations7

7

. The objective of both regulations is to protect human health and the environment by restricting the movement of hazardous waste and other types of waste to developing countries, which in most cases do not have the capacity or infrastructure in place to handle such waste in an environmentally sound way. Overall, the following rules apply on the shipment of waste 10 11:

• Hazardous waste exports from EU to non-OECD countries are not permitted; • Non-hazardous waste to non-OECD countries must be notified to the relevant

authorities in the country of dispatch, transit and destination in advance and following the agreed arrangement;

• In principle, all types of waste can be shipped within the EU regardless of end treatment route (disposal, recovery). However, waste for disposal should be handled in the nearest appropriate facility and Member States can implement a general or specific ban on imports and exports of waste for disposal;

• The shipment of waste for recovery within the EU is subject to less restrictive regulations and in general terms these wastes can be shipped. However, hazardous and certain other types of waste should follow certain procedures;

• In any case the countries of dispatch, transit and destination must be notified of all shipments of waste for disposal and of hazardous waste for recovery;

The above rules may look irrelevant to the objective of collecting trade statistics on mineral-based waste, but in reality they influence the availability and accessibility of them. Therefore, and by taking all the above points into account, the following data sources have been used for producing trade waste data for the European Minerals Yearbook:

• Published data on transboundary movement of waste8

• Data on the shipment of waste that does not have to be notified under transboundary shipment regulations is reported in the Eurostat international trade database (Comext)

9

• Relevant reports on the movement of waste

. These are data for: metallic waste (ferrous and non-ferrous), combustion wastes, waste on batteries and accumulators and glass waste;

10 11

6 UNEP (1989), Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (http://www.basel. int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/text/ BaselConventionText-e.pdf).

.

7 EU (2006), Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste. 8 Eurostat (2015), Environmental data centre on waste – Transboundary waste shipments. URL< http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=502398&p_v_l_s_g_id=0>. Access date:[06/05/2015]. 9 Eurostat (2015), Comext – International trade database. URL< http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/newxtweb/>. Access date:[06/05/2015]. 10 ETC/SCP (2012), Transboundary shipments of waste in the European Union — Reflections on data, environmental impacts and drivers, Prepared by Fischer, C., Junker, H., Paleari, S., Zoboli, R. and Wuttke, J.,

Page 35: Report on availability of mineral statistics

35 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

There are several issues with waste trade data, which are discussed in more detail in the following section. In comparison to data on waste generation and waste treatment, trade data are not as comprehensive nor are they harmonised to the same standard. Due to data gaps, data duplication and inconsistencies, it has been very difficult to provide a complete picture of how waste moves across borders and where/how is waste treated or disposed of, which ultimately lowers the confidence the data provides. However, this is a direct representation of the current status of data availability on trade data on waste and it clearly demonstrates the complexity of tracking trade flows of waste.

7.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline)

Data availability on waste flows Data availability has been an issue for all different data categories being investigated in this project, but especially so for waste trade data. The geographical coverage of data on waste generation and treatment has improved considerably over the years. All EU Members States report data on waste generation and treatment and they are publicly available through Eurostat. EU candidate countries and potential candidates also report some data, although with variable detail in the submitted figures. Due to data limitation for some counties, it is impossible to construct a full picture on the waste generated and treated in Europe. However, when candidate countries become Member States, then this position is going to change, because all Member States are obliged to provide data and to comply with relevant European waste regulations and directives, such as the Waste Framework Directive. Data availability on waste trade is more problematic, due to such data not being available through the usual Eurostat waste statistics. EU Member States are obliged to report, on an annual basis, the amounts of hazardous and some non-hazardous (problematic) waste imported and exported. Although these data are available through the environmental data centre on waste (on transboundary waste shipments), they only represent a fraction of the trade taking place between European Countries and the World. Additional data on waste trade is available through the Comext database, mainly focusing on scrap metals, glass, combustion wastes and waste batteries and accumulators. It becomes obvious that data availability does not cover all the waste materials described in the European List of Waste and they are therefore incomplete. For example, trade data on waste electrical and electronic equipment is quite difficult to identify. Also the spatial coverage of such data is limited. Data originators (reporters) are EU Member States and data about flows within the EU borders and outside EU borders are available. However, for countries that are not Member States, trade flows can only be identified by assuming that imports to non EU Member States are equal to exports from EU Member States and the contrary, hence exports from non EU

ETC/SCP working paper 2/2012, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/ publications) accessed 15 October 2012. 11 EEA (2012), Movement of waste across the EU’s internal and external borders. URL< http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/movements-of-waste-EU-2012>. Access date :[06/05/2015].

Page 36: Report on availability of mineral statistics

36 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Member States are equal to imports from Member States. Obviously this is an assumption that does not necessarily reflect the reality. The UN Comtrade is another source of data on trade; it comprises a similar structure to the Comext database and covers similar waste categories to the EU Comext database. For the purposes of this project, it was decided that European data will be used and therefore data from the Eurostat databases have been utilised. Procedures on data collection set by Eurostat are similar across Member States which, to some extent, suggests that a common level of standardisation is taking place even across different datasets. Trade data on waste in the Yearbook comprise a synthesis of data from the sources discussed above. In many cases, assumptions and decisions on the best data to be presented had to be made by the BGS team in an attempt to fill as many gaps as possible.

Data availability on mineral-based waste and the Eurostat classification system The European Waste Classification for statistical purposes (EWC-Stat) is the system used by the Eurostat waste statistics. Even though the system is material based, the mineral- based waste categories identified are broad and comprise an aggregation of several different waste types. It is therefore impossible under the current system to identify the quantities of single waste types, for instance metallurgical copper waste, or mining waste from copper mining, which could enable the quantification of the resource potential of secondary raw materials. The EWC-Stat waste statistics are derivatives of the Members States statistical data provided using the List of Waste codes. The List of waste codes may provide better data resolution than the EWC-Stat codes, but the former are based on different industry activities rather than material categories. For instance slags/drosses can be generated from the iron and steel industry, from aluminium thermal metallurgy, from copper thermal metallurgy and several other industrial activities. The List of Waste codes can provide individual figures for waste generated from different industrial activities, but these figures do not project the resource potential of these materials. There is no characterisation data attached to waste types or any sort of analysis and indication on the recovery and recycling potential of these materials.

Data inconsistencies Data inconsistencies are present in all data acquired from Eurostat waste statistics and the trade databases. For waste generation data inconsistencies include the following: -Double counting: Waste generation includes all wastes generated by economic activities and by households. These include waste generated by waste management and treatment facilities, which comprise secondary waste generation. This in effect means that double counting is inherent in the Eurostat waste generation figures. However, waste generation figures presented in the yearbook have excluded secondary waste. Secondary waste figures are only presented in the Sankey diagrams. Also, depending on the survey methods used by Member States, double counting may be present, when different surveys are undertaken to produce waste generation figures from economic activities and households or/and when household waste generation data are based on a census of waste collectors. Double counting under these circumstances occurs due to

Page 37: Report on availability of mineral statistics

37 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

misinterpretations of data, difficulties in differentiating household from business waste and multiple stages of trading of waste prior to treatment where companies trading the same waste are included in the survey -Data resolution and accuracy: Depending on the methods used to collect data on waste generation by Member States the level of detail and accuracy of this data will be undermined. For instance, data collected directly from waste generators tend to have a better resolution and accuracy, rather than data determined indirectly via waste treatment operators. In the latter case, the source of waste generation may be unclear especially so for waste types that do not evidently relate to an economic activity. Data inconsistencies for waste treatment include: - Double counting due to multiple treatment steps: Waste treatment includes all waste entering treatment facilities for final treatment. However, often the case is that waste undergoes through several treatment processes in different facilities and in some cases the distinction between pre-treatment and final treatment is not clear. For example, incineration may represent a thermal pre-treatment stage from which secondary waste is generated. This secondary waste may be subsequently recovered or landfilled. In this case, the waste is counted twice. Treatment processes for recovery may require several steps to be undertaken in different facilities depending on the waste type to be treated. Multiple treatment steps with no distinct boundaries may introduce double counting into the datasets. -Minimised data reliability: Most of the times a combination of different data sources and methods are used by Member States to produce waste treatment datasets. This is done with the scope to minimise data gaps, to increase data coverage, to avoid multiple and overlapping data collection, but it is also required when data collection is spread across different administrative bodies/levels. Nevertheless, the combination of data from different sources and methods is usually associated with a variety of problems. Registers may be incompatible due to different concepts used, classifications and definition may be different and even units used may not correspond to statistical units. All the above may introduce errors in the datasets and undermine their reliability. The amount of waste generated does not match the amount of waste treated: In many cases waste generation figures are based on estimates produced from Member States due to the absence of survey data. Inherent estimation errors result to a discrepancy between the total figures reported as waste generated and the total figures reported for treated waste for several Member States. This difference is also attributed to several other factors including the effect of imports and exports of waste, weight losses, double counting of secondary waste, differences due to time lags, temporary storage and the misplaced allocation of pre-treatment. At country level, the above have a significant impact on the figures reported. Data discrepancies in waste trade statistics are present due to the following issues: -Errors in reporting: Data asymmetries are due to product misclassification (wrong use of trading codes), difficulties to define the correct partner country and triangular trade, incorrect reporting of values and missing declarations. Missing declarations occur for several reasons including late or no compliance to reporting obligations, trade chains involving extra-EU

Page 38: Report on availability of mineral statistics

38 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

transactions, confusion where goods are cleared and borderline cases between trade of goods and services (i.e goods repairs). - Methodological issues: Methodologies and concepts related to the collection and reporting of trade data vary from one Member State to the next and as a result data variability across Europe and between trading partner is expected. -Dissemination issues: Due to confidentiality issues, hidden information on product codes or the partner country may be present, which has as a result incomplete data inventories. The data revision timescales and practices are influenced by individual Member States methodologies which has a direct impact on the dissemination of trade data on waste.

7.3 Recommendations for future development A modified waste classification system: The EWC-Stat classification has been built with waste management and the tackling of waste in mind rather than the reporting of the resource potential of waste. At the moment there is no classification system where waste is categorised upon its resource potential. Therefore a different or modified system (modified EWC-Stat classification) should be developed, which is commodity based and clearly presents the recoverable and recyclable elements of waste materials on the basis of current technological trends. Waste characterisation data should accompany any data reported through the proposed modified systems. The recommended classification system would provide a better understanding of the waste materials across Europe, its characteristics and utilisation potential. This recommendation is in line with the circular economy package currently being the focus of the European Commission. The recommended waste classification system will require the collection and generation of additional data and infrastructure from Member States and the Commission. A single harmonised database on waste statistics: As explained in previous sections waste trade data are not part of the Eurostat waste statistics, but from different sources and reported data use different coding systems rather than the EWC-Stat codes. In order to understand better the cycle of waste flows in Europe, it is essential that coherent data on waste generation, treatment and trade is available, which allow for comparisons to be made. The trade of waste has increased rapidly over the last decade and now comprises an important element of the economies of Member States. Access therefore to harmonised waste statistics will enable better decision making by increasing the transparency of the fate of waste in Europe and the resource potential of secondary raw materials.

8 Case studies for the supply of secondary raw materials

8.1 Essential feedback In general, the economies of the World use a “take > make > consume > dispose” linear pattern of growth which is based on the assumption that resources are abundant and easy to source, and that the disposal of waste is inexpensive. However, in recent years the potential

Page 39: Report on availability of mineral statistics

39 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

importance of recycling and the concept of the ‘circular economy’ have become more prominent (Figure 5) 12

. Materials that were previously regarded as ‘waste’ could potentially be a source of ‘secondary raw materials’. Improving the recovery of key commodities, particularly the raw materials which are deemed ‘critical’, would improve resource efficiency and competitiveness.

Figure 5: Diagram describing the ‘circular economy’ used in the European Commission communication document “Towards a circular economy”12. In addition to collecting together the available statistics for waste generation and treatment by country (see section 7), this part of the work, conducted by the Wuppertal Institute, examined the potential for the supply of raw materials from these secondary sources using 10 mineral commodities as case studies. The selected commodities are: Iron and steel Copper Aluminium Gold Silver Palladium

Platinum Indium Yttrium Dysprosium

The analysis required the identification of the application fields (i.e. the uses) for each commodity and from these a selection of the key products was chosen for further consideration (Table 10). The full range of identified products could not be used as the study would have become unwieldy. Other products were identified that are not shown in Table 10 but those listed represent at least 66 per cent of total demand for each commodity. Once the list of products were selected, the quantity of these products currently in use and entering the market each year was estimated, as was the quantity of the selected commodities contained within each product. The lifespan of the product (and hence when it might be

12 European Commission COM(2014) 398 final/2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:aa88c66d-4553-11e4-a0cb-01aa75ed71a1.0022.03/DOC_1&format=PDF

Page 40: Report on availability of mineral statistics

40 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

available for recycling) was then considered and the proportion of the commodity that is actually recovered during recycling processes was estimated. The analysis then calculated the percentage of the European Union’s requirement for each commodity that could potentially be covered by the supply from secondary sources and the percentage that is actually covered by this supply. Commodity Application fields Identified products

Aluminium Transportation

Non-electric passenger vehicles Other types of vehicles including trains, ships and aircraft Freight containers

Building and construction e.g. doors, windows, curtain walls, etc. Packaging e.g. food trays, foil, beverage cans, etc.

Copper

Building and construction Plumbing Communication wiring Electrical power applications

Infrastructure Power utility infrastructure Telecommunications infrastructure

Transportation Non-electric passenger vehicles Other types of vehicles including trains, ships and aircraft

Equipment Air conditioning and refrigeration Electronic equipment

Dysprosium

Hard disk drives Desktop computers Laptop computers

Automotive Electric vehicles Hybrid electric vehicles

Motors Wind turbines Gold Jewellery Jewellery

Indium Liquid-Crystal-Displays (LCD)

LCD televisions Notebook computers Desktop monitors

Iron and steel Building and construction e.g. structural elements in most types of buildings, bridges, flood

defences, reinforcing bars etc.

Transportation Non-electric passenger vehicles Other types of vehicles including trains, ships and aircraft

Palladium Automotive Autocatalyst

Platinum Automotive Autocatalyst Jewellery Jewellery

Silver Electrical applications e.g. conductors, switches, contacts, fuses, etc. Jewellery Jewellery Coins Coins

Table 10: continued overleaf

Page 41: Report on availability of mineral statistics

41 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

Commodity Application fields Identified products

Yttrium

Luminescence (display, lighting)

Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps Large LED video screens Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) televisions CRT monitors Fluorescent lamps

Liquid-Crystal-Displays (LCD) for back lighting

LCD televisions LCD Monitors Laptop computers Smartphones Large LCD video screens

Table 10: Identified application fields for each of the 10 commodities together with identified products. Those selected for further consideration are highlighted in pale orange. Full details of the methodology and sources of data can be found in a separate report which will be accessible via the Yearbook. The analysis results will also be presented in the Yearbook in the form of a short case study for each commodity. The results reveal a very wide variation in the proportion of total EU demand that could be met by supply from secondary sources. For example, between 16 and 46% of platinum requirements is already covered by the recycling of platinum from non-electrical passenger vehicles and this compares favourably to the calculated potential of 26–73%. However, for indium the actual requirement met by recycling of LCD TVs, LCD monitors and laptop computers is 0.0001–0.0002% compared to a potential of just 0.01–0.02%.

8.2 Issues and challenges (broad outline)

Data availability and data sources As with any study of this kind, the availability of comprehensive, up-to-date statistics of sufficient detail is a major issue. The study used a variety of sources and the Wuppertal Institute acknowledge that these contain varying degrees of uncertainty. This is reflected in the final results by the use of ranges rather than single figures. In many cases, data were not available at the level of detail ideally required and as a consequence proxy data has had to be used instead. For example, in some cases data for the EU as a whole were not available but data for a single country was discovered and this was used with the assumption that the rest of Europe would be similar.

Definition of lifetime The term ‘lifetime’ can have different meanings depending upon the context in which the term is used. A product may have:

• A technical lifetime, i.e. how long it will work for • A psychological lifetime, i.e. how long people expect to keep it

Page 42: Report on availability of mineral statistics

42 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

• An economic lifetime, i.e. defined by the cost of maintenance compared to the cost of replacement

• A practical lifetime, i.e. a combination of psychological and economic factors • An actual lifetime, i.e. the time from when a product is produced until it is considered

to be waste Even if a single definition of this term is used, there are many influences on the lifetime of a product. For example the technical lifetime of a product depends on how the product is used, what level of maintenance it receives and often on external influences such as the climate it is subjected to, etc. The availability of data for the lifetime of products is poor and therefore calculating the length of time a product is ‘in use’ is very difficult.

Metrics for recycling rates The term ‘recycling rate’ is not consistently defined and may, or may not, include the recycling of products at ‘end-of-life’ (EOL) and/or during a manufacturing process. There are also a variety of metrics used to measure recycling, for example the quantity of EOL material that enters a recycling chain, the quantity of material that results from a recycling process or the fraction of a manufactured product that was sourced from recycling.

8.3 Recommendations for future development • If this type of study is considered to be useful, a fundamental review of the data available

by a panel of experts to make clear recommendations for future improvements in data provision.

• Consistent definitions for key terminology and important metrics should be developed. • Expand the analysis to include additional commodities and products.

9 Future development of the Yearbook The first edition of the European Minerals Yearbook was produced by collaboration between the BGS (British Geological Survey) as WP4 leaders and BRGM (French Geological Survey) as WP5 leaders. The BGS was responsible for bringing all the collected data together into a format that was suitable for loading to the Yearbook and BRGM was responsible for the technical aspects required to build the digital Yearbook. During the Minerals4EU project, many ideas and suggestions have been received with regards to the functionality of the digital Yearbook. These include ideas put forward by the participants of a workshop held in Brussels on 3 December 2014, which are described in a separate report13

, together with additional ideas that have been received from the WP4 partners and other attendees at the project’s six monthly progress meetings. Although many of these ideas and suggestions have been incorporated into the European Minerals Yearbook, not all of them were feasible during the timescale of the project.

13 Report for Deliverable 4.2 Stakeholder Workshop, published on the project website: http://www.minerals4eu.eu/

Page 43: Report on availability of mineral statistics

43 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

The following list is a record of these additional ideas and suggestions for the Yearbook and is provided in the hope that future editions of the European Minerals Yearbook will be able to incorporate some or all of them. A brief summary of the recommendations discussed above are included below these for completeness. General functionality • Making the Yearbook available as a PDF so it can be printed in its entirety • Making each section printable individually • Enabling each table to be downloaded into Excel and/or csv format • A single button to download the entire Yearbook • Downloads of high-quality images/illustrations with logo embedded for media use • Each of the download functions should include the project logo and yearbook disclaimer • Links to national geological surveys, other data providers and various other organisations • Links to other relevant projects, such as Minventory14

• Graphical representation (tree chart) of the commodity classification linked to glossary

• Multilingual synonym list of commodities • Statistics on the use of the digital Yearbook • ‘Hot key’ pop up definitions for key terms in addition to the glossary • Expansion of the glossary and improvements to its accessibility, increased

communication and dissemination to ensure its use becomes more widespread • Navigation tools to allow users to jump to sections lower down each page and then

“return to top” • Reduction in sideways scrolling but widening the width of the view if technically

possible • Making the icons on the menu page clickable in the same way as the ‘view’ buttons • Ability to swap between ‘by commodity’ and ‘by country’ views, or between different

commodities/counties, without returning to the main menu page (could be via a drop down list on the commodity name or a ‘pick list’ on a separate pane on the left side of the screen).

• Add a button to ‘share’ a certain page of the yearbook by e-mail. • More accessible ‘user guide’ available from within the pages of the Yearbook, consider

including greater explanation of the Sankey diagrams for Waste Flow information Specifically for production, imports or exports data • Rankings of top (largest) countries for each data type (in Europe or the World) • Graphs demonstrating a country’s production as a percentage of the EU total and/or

world total • Additional commodities, e.g. production of silica sand or industrial carbonate, possibly

extend the remit of the Yearbook to include energy minerals (coal, oil, gas, uranium) • Additional interactive graphs, e.g. a graphical representation of the production data ‘by

country’; it was suggested that this could be a pop up window from the commodity name and show a trend over the 10 years, or/and a pop up window from the year and show a pie chart for the commodities share in that year.

14 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/minventory/content/minventory

Page 44: Report on availability of mineral statistics

44 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

• Data on net exports (i.e. exports minus imports) • Analysis of import dependency • Origin of imports or destination of exports Specifically for resources and reserves data • Standardisation of units • Inclusion of dates applicable to the reported figures • Investigate the order in which the different reporting codes are presented • Investigate the possible inclusion of cut off grades (but there are many factors affecting

this so it is not at all straightforward and some stakeholders have commented that they cannot be aggregated beyond deposit level; they may be of little use in national figures)

• Data compilation by region where national figures not available • An overview figure for Europe as a whole with a total estimate for resources “in the order

of ...”. This would have to be a very rounded estimate to start with until a greater degree of standardisation has been achieved.

Specifically related to exploration data • Maps of active exploration areas (and of mining licenses) • Statistics on amount of exploration drilling that has taken place • Differentiate between ‘greenfield’ exploration, i.e. for completely new locations, and

‘brownfield’ exploration, i.e. for extensions to existing mining locations Specifically related to waste flow data • Examination of available data for mine waste in greater detail than was possible during

this project • Waste flow data that are commodity based Other items • Concise high-level summaries for individual countries (including total minerals

production, numbers of deposits, numbers of mines, the most important minerals commodities) and commodities (including the leading producers in Europe, import dependence, etc.)

• Links to Minventory country summaries15

• Basic data about each country such as land area, population or population density, characteristics of the country in terms of minerals potential, mineral strategy, etc.

• Basic data about each commodity such as characteristics, mineralogy, end uses, etc. • Inclusion of ‘relative supply risk index’ • Price information and/or values associated with production and trade • Links to government policies and procedural documents • List of operating companies and a map of their locations • Details of employment • Actual investment figures for mine development • Figures for mineral consumption (or apparent consumption)

15 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/minventory/country-summaries

Page 45: Report on availability of mineral statistics

45 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

• Information relating to the typical end uses of each commodity; a glossary of end products

• Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and environmental impact data, CO2-intensity, energy requirement for production of one product unit, transport modes and distances

• Information about the up- and downstream value chains (added value) • A multilingual glossary of terms (or entirely multilingual webpage) • Providing a table of country-specific challenges (e.g. spatial planning conflicts) and of

approaches how these can be addressed successfully Top 5 best practice examples of innovative resource extraction projects for every country

• Different levels of functionality depending on the user and their requirements • Consider providing more information about the data sources in order that this could be

used as a collaboration incentive for existing and potential data providers • Refinement of the questionnaire used to collect resources and reserves data, including the

possibility of additional columns to allow the reporting of further categories • Examination of how the Yearbook works on mobile platforms. For example, shift-click

for example works well on a desktop pc but does not have an equivalent on a mobile platform

• Improvements to vertical scrolling to keep the headings in view • Expansion to list of commodities for all data types – to include, for example, production

of industrial sand, e.g. glass sand, foundry sand (and other forms of silica sand), consider including both raw and processed forms of minerals such as kaolin, consider adding energy minerals

• Currently trade data for precious metals and diamonds may include some value data where quantity is not available, these should be converted to Euros

Recommendations discussed in more detail earlier in this report Section 3 Production data • Continue attempts to establish contact with new production data providers within the

countries concerned, particularly where a greater number of estimates are currently used. • Discuss with existing production data providers to see if they can also supply data for any

additional commodities needed. • Continue to discuss existing production data with providers to improve understanding of

data and ensure the most accurate figures are used.

Section 4 Trade data • Investigate the mechanism for opening discussions relating to data resolution for trade

data.

Section 5 Resources and reserves data • Commence discussions with the aim of reaching a common definition for the terms

‘resources’ and ‘reserves’. • Commence discussions between the countries with the aim of reaching a common system

of reporting to be adopted specifically for use in the Yearbook.

Page 46: Report on availability of mineral statistics

46 WP4 – Mineral Statistics British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK

Minerals4EU FP7-NMP.2013.4.1-3

• Once a common system of reporting has been adopted for the Yearbook, begin discussions with each country to examine how their resource and reserve statistics can be ‘mapped’ to that common system, including the development of a bridging document if one does not already exist.

• A ‘Competent Person’ (or persons) will be required to carry out such ‘mapping’ and additional training of staff within key countries may be required to develop and undertake this exercise.

• Commence discussions between experts to establish an agreed list of commodity names to be included in the Yearbook in future (with agreed definitions for the commodity names used if required).

• The benefits of central collation of data should be demonstrated and publicised to all countries, both those that currently undertake it and those that do not.

• There can be no compulsion for a sovereign state to change its national laws, therefore other ideas for encouraging central collation should be explored.

• Explore the reasons behind confidentiality issues and discuss possible resolutions.

Section 6 Exploration data • Continue to request data for all six metrics in future updates of the European Minerals

Yearbook, for the foreseeable future. Section 7 Waste data • Begin discussions relating to a modified waste classification system whereby where

waste is categorised upon its resource potential. • Begin discussions relating to a harmonised database for data on trade in waste. Section 8 Case studies • If this type of study is considered to be useful, a fundamental review of the data available

by a panel of experts to make clear recommendations for future improvements in data provision.

• Consistent definitions for key terminology and important metrics should be developed. • Expand the analysis to include additional commodities and products.