tive acquis of the countries with multiple changes. These changes are often influenced by the political colour of the party holding the majority or by the needs of certain parties to achieve approval of legislation. Subsequently, these laws, which are generally not basic or primary laws, almost always lead to more restrictive regional laws for the mining sector. These laws are nothing more than the legislative achievement of a NIMBY (not in my back yard) trend that has come to stay in Europe. No politician, regardless of political colour, in a 4- or 5-year legislative timeframe wants to get involved in mining projects with life cycles of decades, when society in general is demanding the establishment of other industries in their territory. Almost nobody stops to think about where the minerals that allow manufacturing in their welfare state come from, or under what conditions they arrive. In addition to this, each country now has very different legislation and there is no mining regulation at European level that is of direct and mandatory application in the territory of the EU-28 that can replace obsolete mining laws not very consistent with the globalisation of raw materials currently existing on the planet. Without this common regulatory framework for all countries of the EU-28 it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement national policies that comply with the principles of the RMI. Similarly, in the order of administrative competences, there are still cases of national mining laws which reserve different activities for certain professionals to the detriment of others. One example is the Mining Law of Spain, in force since its adoption in the bygone era of the dictatorship. A unified European criterion regarding the professional activity does not exist. Although professional titles, such as EurGeol, are valid at the European level for various tasks, to practice as a geologist in a foreign country as a resident, you still need to have the academic title of geologist achieved in the country of origin recognised through some bureaucratic process. This is usually complex and not always rewarding in many European countries. The answer to these problems requires a global response and cooperative sense among the member countries of the Union. There are also notable differences between the European countries’ classifications of mineral resources, laws on ownership of subsurface resources, types of licenses for exploration and exploitation, and many other aspects.
44
Vision for the future That is why, in conclusion, we can say that in order to provide Europe with a genuine common policy on research and sustainable exploitation of our geological resources it is necessary to create a common legislative framework for the countries of the EU-28, with important intergovernmental and intersectoral collaboration in the development of a European raw materials policy. Thus, the creation of a European Regulation that brings together all aspects that make up the mining process and creates a single and direct legislative framework and of full implementation at the European level is essential. A regulation that promotes a new legal framework at European level and the adequacy of national mining laws and development decrees would ensure that mining in Europe started from common rules for the entire EU territory. This would cover not only the administrative issue of permits and licenses, but also would include the process of preliminary investigation, investment in exploitation, environmental control during operation and decommissioning and closure once the deposit has been fully exploited. It would also facilitate the creation of a truly European geological service (similar to the USGS) that would boost the exchange of competences and specialisation throughout the European countries. Previous research could be based in a research and development program created to elaborate a map of mineral resources in Europe using a global classification system, comparable and of easy information exchange between the stakeholders involved. This classification system could be the UNFC-2009 or even the PERC code if additional categories for mineralisations beyond inferred resources were created. From there, once the probable and proven mineral reserves are defined at country level, as well as the potential economic resources (with the help of the National Geological Services or "ad hoc" working groups), there could be open tenders for the detailed investigation of the known mineral resources where information could be shared and understood by all stakeholders through a mining Reporting Code, such as PERC. For certain strategic minerals it may be worthwhile to map, assess and measure the mineral resources for an economically viable deposit and then to set up public tenders for exploitation as a useful tool for mining companies that could participate on equal terms. If the resources of the European subsoil were all in public owner-
ship, even though the surface land could be private property, this would facilitate this process, as undesirable attitudes that sometimes occur if ownership of subsoil mineral resource is in private hands would then be avoided in mining project management. Another point of importance which is currently not implemented in Europe is the homogenisation of curricula for training professionals involved in the mining process, so that a true free movement of professionals across borders of the different European countries and third countries would be generated, treating all on an equal footing, eliminating existing barriers – similar to those existing the 19th century – to the freedom to provide professional services and reserves of activity. The Bologna Process has created the framework for an engineer, geologist or technician of any country in Europe to carry out his/her activity in another country on equal footing with their nationals, but there is still much work to ensure that competence is given to the competent professional in mining operations. In this issue, international collaboration within the territory of the EU-28 is essential, both at the level of governments and of the professional associations of the different sectors involved in the research and extraction of mineral raw materials. A possible solution would be for the EurGeol title to serve as a passport to freedom to provide services across Europe to all geologists who possess it. This would eliminate the need to validate the academic title in the administration of another country in order to work there as a geologist. Finally, the NIMBY trend on the European continent for everything related to mining is a problem that can destroy environmentally safe and viable projects before they start. This trend is fed by certain political sectors, by certain social actors who reject outright any mining activities, and by some economic sectors that move at the bidding of global financial markets. This situation is a handicap for mining activity in Europe and worldwide. Nor has it helped that some accidents in mines in operation draw national and international media attention, which can make the population more likely to reject the extraction of the resources needed for the future development of their own societies. Mining Professionals must give guarantees to society that mining projects, like any economic activity of an industrial nature, comply with the highest technical and environmental requirements before starting extraction, throughout the whole useful life cycle and during the closure and restoration time. The Environmental Impact