Mineral deposits of public importance (MDoPI) in relation to the Project of the National Mineral Policy of Poland

 Corresponding Author: Krzysztof Galos; e-mail: [email protected] 1 Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland; e-mail: [email protected] 2 MinPol – Agency for International Mineral Policy, Dreistetten, Austria. 3 CONICET & Instituto Interdisciplinario de Economía Política (IIEP-Baires), Buenos Aires, Argentina. 4 VŠB – Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. gospodarka surowcami mineralnymi – mineral resources management 2018 Volume 34 Issue 4 Pages 5–24 DOI: 10.24425/122594 KRzySzTOf GAlOS1, GÜNTER TIESS2, AlICjA KOT-NIEwIADOMSKA1, DIEGO MURGUIA3, BlAzENA wERTIChOVá4 mineral deposits of public importance (mdopi) in relation to the project of the national mineral policy of poland introduction The functioning of European economies and societies requires a stable and sustainable supply of mineral resources for industry, housing and construction, transportation, telecommunications, IT and other major uses since we all want to live in a safe, healthy and prosperous environment. Even if Europe makes substantial progress in the path towards a circular economy, the extraction of primary mineral raw materials, in Europe and elsewhere, will still be needed. This is due, among other reasons, to an increasing population and a growing minerals demand, unavoidable losses and the fact that some essential minerals cannot be recycled (e.g. phosphate rock for fertilizers, fluorspar for steel making), can be substituted with considerable losses of performance (e.g. silicon for germanium) or cannot yet be substituted (e.g. helium for specific applications like cryogenics or natural graphite in refractories) (Deloitte 2017). Even in the case of steel which has currently one of the world´s highest recycling rates (over 85%), long-term forecasts indicate that secondary steel production (from 6Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 scrap) may only surpass primary production (from virgin ores) in the second half of the 21st century; yet primary extraction will still be necessary (Pauliuk et al. 2013). for over ten years now the EU has been developing a multi-faceted raw materials initiative (European Commission 2008, 2011) to secure the European raw materials supply promoting EU-wide collaborative multi-stakeholder actions on imports, exports, resource efficiency and domestic extraction. Framed in a context of transition towards low-carbon and circular economies and in recognition of Europe´s mineral potential, the EU and its Member States are promoting a revitalization of the importance of domestic primary mineral resources and their associated mining, quarrying and metallurgical industries. Despite such actions, its mineral potential and the high positioning of some jurisdictions like finland, Ireland or Sweden in global investment attractiveness rankings (fraser Institute 2017), many European jurisdictions and mineral deposits are not competitive enough to attract the necessary investments. The reasons behind this include policy and regulations implementation (overlapping policies, over-implementation of legislation, ‘red-tape’ issues, bureaucracy), inefficient permitting regimes, lack of social acceptance and risks of time-consuming legal disputes, among others (see e.g. MinPol 2017). In many cases, areas with known or hypothetic mineral geological potential, are not sufficiently valued by the society and authorities, remain unprotected and face competing land uses with the risk of becoming unnecessarily sterilized. This means that access to those land areas hosting the minerals becomes impeded permanently and expensive, e.g. due to physical infrastructure constructed in that area (e.g. housing, transport infrastructure) or legal protection of areas which does not allow or severely restricts minerals extraction (e.g. nature conservation areas). A survey by IMA-Europe among its members determined that the change of land use planning from non-mining into mining is one of the major bottlenecks in mineral resource permitting with estimations that it takes on average 10 years to finalize such a process across the EU (Shtiza 2016). The loss of access to minerals plays against the sustainable management of natural resources as it may be the case that in the future minerals nowadays not considered “critical” become so. Another possibility is that new future extraction technologies are developed which allow a less environmentally risky, more efficient and low-impact extraction of minerals nowadays considered unacceptable by the society. The protection of mineral deposits via land use planning has been acknowledged for a long time as a good practice that can be employed by Member States to ensure access to minerals on their territory (Ad-hoc working Group 2014, 2010). The practice of safeguarding access to the areas where a mineral is located is based on the fact that minerals can only be extracted from where they are found. The legal designation of a “protected area” is generally applied to locations which receive protection because of their recognized natural, ecological or cultural values. In Europe, the most extensive network of areas protected for the conservation of nature (Natura 2000) covers 18% of the EU land mass. yet, the designation of areas for the protection (or safeguarding) of mineral resources is less well-known, though important across the EU: such a designation is considered in different ways by the land use planning law in several European jurisdictions such as: Austria, Croatia, the Czech 7 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 Republic, the Emilia-Romagna Region, hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden or the United Kingdom (horvath et al. 2016). The legal basis and the implementation of “safeguarding practices” is very heterogeneous across such jurisdictions, e.g. due to the different national mineral inventory reporting codes which undermines the comparability between countries and also within countries (e.g. Germany and Italy apply regional codes) of what kind of deposits are being protected. Other reasons are that countries and regions valuate minerals in different ways according to their needs and demands, they use different categories and levels, they may or may not require stakeholder consultation for the designation of protection areas. Moreover, protection may be considered differently in the law, e.g. while in Austria and the UK there specific categorizations exist for the designation of raw material priority zones or mineral safeguarding areas, in Poland, according to the Act on land Use Planning and Space Management (2003), borders of mineral deposits should be included in the Provincial Spatial Management Plan (horváth et al. 2016). The MINATURA 2020 project (2015–2018) was born out of a need to develop a harmonized framework which allowed a common way of identifying “Mineral Deposits of Public Importance” (MDoPI) and their safeguarding via land use planning. The project is now ended but has left a useful set of guidelines and proposals on how to advance on the creation of a European network of MDoPIs to avoid the unnecessary sterilization of what Member States define as “deposits worth safeguarding”. In Poland, the need for the legal protection of mineral deposits was pointed out already over 30 years ago and later discussed in numerous papers. The necessary conditions for reasonable mineral resources development and securing of mineral supply are:  protection of areas where deposits are known or likely to occur from land use which may preclude mining,  reasonable recovery of deposit resources,  advanced long-term forecasting of deposit exploitation in relation to minerals demand forecasting, as well as the mode of utilization of post mining areas, utilization of mining and processing wastes (Nieć et al. 2014). The protection of mineral deposits, as one of the environmental resources (like a land surface, climate, air, water, landscape), is declared in the Act of April 27, 2001 Environmental Protection law (Articles 3 point 39 and 125–126, Dz.U.2001.62.627). Mineral resources management, as well as mining activity, is regulated by the Act of june 9, 2011 Geological and Mining law (Dz.U.2011.163.981) and several other legal acts that can help to solve the arising problems where environmental concerns or the current land use limit the accessibility of mineral deposits for exploration or extraction, but only to a limited extent. Based on Geological and Mining law, within two years from the date of approval of the geological documentation (or 6 months in case of hydrocarbon deposits) the area of the documented mineral deposit must be obligatory included in the Study of Conditions and Directions of Spatial Management of Commune (the basic document of local spatial planning). The Act, however, primarily protects the exploited deposits, by ordering the rational use of primary and accompanying minerals. 8Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 The legal regulations offered therein are however too general to allow for the effective protection of identified but as yet unexploited deposits and areas of their potential occurrence (Nieć et al. 2014). Moreover, the legislations are addressed only for mineral deposits with mineral resources (prospective areas are not included). More detailed legal regulations were proposed (Nieć and Radwanek-Bąk 2011). The main suggestions are:  subdivision of mineral deposits, according to their resources scale and mineral quality into three categories of various protection classes:  h – high value nationally-important deposits (most valuable deposits of raw materials),  M – medium value-regionally important deposits (deposits of valuable raw materials),  C – common-locally important deposits (all other deposits),  declared accessibility of areas of mineral deposits occurrence, and limitation of land use precluding mining (prohibition of residential or industrial buildings, main roads and pipelines construction),  obligatory preparation of “mineral deposits development plans” in each administrative unit (province, commune) with presentation of the predicted mode of utilization of post-mining areas as a part of the “land use plan”. In Poland, the most important, strategic document related to spatial development – the National Spatial Development Concept until 2030 (NSDC 2030) – was approved by the government in December 2011, while the NSDC 2030 Action Plan of – in june 2013. The NSDC 2030 introduced a category of strategic mineral deposits, which should be protected through the establishment of appropriate functional areas related to these deposits (with protection against permanent buildings and linear structures). It also assumed the introduction of deposit extraction plans. According to such plans, areas of selected mineral deposits would be covered by a so-called planning reserve at the provincial level. Until now, only 4 lignite deposits and 3 hard coal deposits were classified as strategic mineral deposits in the NSDC 2030 (Nieć et al. 2014). The preparation of complete list of strategic mineral deposits, as well as on deposit extraction plans have, unfortunately, not yet started,. Current works on the Polish National Mineral Policy (see chapter 4) provide some hope that it will be successfully finalized in the near term. 1. scope and general results of the minatura 2020 project 1.1. aims and scope of the minatura 2020 project Under a Consortium of 24 organizations from 19 European countries, the MINATURA 2020 project had the development of a concept and a methodology (common framework) for the definition and subsequent protection MDoPI for their ‘best use’ in the future as the 9 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 overall objective. As previously mentioned, the objective of such a common framework should be to ensure long-term accessibility to specific tracts of land surface which overly geological formations that host or have the potential to host an MDoPI, thus curtailing or restricting other land uses that may increase the risk or hinder on-going or future exploration works or mining activity. Such MDoPI may then be integrated into land-use planning processes, where the protection of other resources and assets is already well integrated. The subject of the MINATURA 2020 project was only non-energy minerals, which – according to usual practice – can be divided into three main sub-groups according to the different physical and chemical characteristics of the minerals produced, their uses, and the downstream industries they supply: metalliferous minerals (metals ores), industrial minerals and construction minerals. 1.2. Definition of MDoPI The first step for the establishment of a common framework for the identification and subsequent safeguarding of MDoPI was their definition. After iterative discussions, it was agreed that the term ‘minerals’ includes any ‘rock’ and/or ‘ore’ which has an economic value or which contains a material of economic value at a certain point in time and location, and that the ‘mineral deposit’ is an accumulation of naturally occurring substances (a geological body, e.g. an orebody) and/or of mine wastes that may supply raw materials needed by the society in a certain time, location and context (Tiess and Murguía 2016). wastes were included as a potential worth of being safeguarded as they are of relevance for some EU countries (e.g. Portugal) where there are considerable resources which could be extracted from mine residues. During discussions within the MINATURA 2020 consortium and with the external stakeholders it was emphasized the that term ‘public importance’ within the context of minerals management should be associated with the provision of social and economic benefits to the society that owns or administers such mineral resources. Thus, a common definition on the MDoPI concept was agreed, arguing that “A mineral deposit is of public importance where information demonstrates that it could provide sustainable economic, social or other benefit to the EU (or the member states or a specific region/municipality)”. The main advantages of such a definition is that it is short, broad, inclusive and flexible, it does not per se assume (or explicitly define) a restrictive or comprehensive definition of ‘mineral deposit’ and it is multi-criteria in that it refers to the term ‘sustainable exploitation’ which introduces the sustainability pillars (Tiess and Murguía 2016). It was also agreed within the Consortium that the MDoPI should be classified according to three levels: 1) MDoPI at the EU level (MDoPI-EU), at the country level (MDoPI-Cl) and at the regional level (MDoPI-Rl) (Galos et al. 2016). This is because the importance of each MDoPI is linked to a different scale. So, for example, whereas tungsten deposits may be of high importance for the EU, considered a ‘critical raw material’ (European Commission 10 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 2017), tungsten may not be of highest importance at the local level, e.g. in Portugal where important deposits are located as tungsten is mainly exported and consumed by the industry in other countries. In contrast, whereas construction aggregates may be of high importance for growing cities, they are surely not of high importance at the EU or national level as they are extracted and used mainly at the local level. The safeguarding of the MDoPI in practice requires the delineation of an area which delimits the spatial extent of the area to be protected, i.e. generally known as a mineral safeguarding area (MSA). An important feature of the designation of MSAs is that their designation does not lead directly to ‘extraction’ (and may never lead to) nor does it give any policy support for ‘extraction’. In other words, safeguarding an area hosting mineral resources means that its value is officially acknowledged by the authorities and that particular condition will be assessed in parity with other land-uses by the competent spatial planning authorities. In this sense it means that mineral extraction will be at least considered before any form of sterilizing development can go ahead. It follows, therefore, that a safeguarding approach could also encourage the prior extractiona of minerals where this is practical and provides an overall benefit. At the same time, the designation of the MSA does not automatically preclude other forms of development; it is a long-term investment within the context of fostering a sustainable supply of raw materials from European sources. In summary, what the MSAs do is draw attention to the presence of important mineral resources and make sure that they are adequately and effectively considered in land-use planning decisions (McEvoy et al. 2007; wrighton et al. 2014). for the purposes of MINATURA 2020 project, a broad approach to the term of potential MDoPI to be safeguarded was adopted, which can include:  mineral potential areas having only undiscovered resources (speculative resources);  hypothetical resources (according to USGS definitions) or promising exploration results;  mineral deposits having estimated mineral resources (measured, indicated, inferred);  mineral deposits with mineral reserves (probable, proved) and mining license. however, each EU Member State would decide whether to include – in the future MDoPI assignment – mineral deposits currently operated, or to exclusively focus on undeveloped areas (Tiess and Murguia 2016). 1.3. Proposed method of MDoPI identification As stressed by the European Commission (European Commission 2011) and a report of the Ad hoc working Group (Ad-hoc working Group 2010), a comprehensive land-use a This entails the requirement to consider the feasibility for prior extraction of any mineral present at a site before any non-mineral development such as a housing takes place, see: McEvoy et al. 2007; wrighton et al. 2014. 11 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 planning policy that enables the safeguarding of MDoPI needs to be based on the following elements:  a digital geological knowledge base;  a transparent methodology for the identification of mineral resources (quality, quantity, economic importance);  long-term estimates for regional and local minimal demand (especially for construction materials), taking other sources of materials into account (e.g. recycled), based on sustainable development principles as a monitoring tool;  identifying and safeguarding mineral resources to meet minimum demand, taking other land uses into account. Those four elements comprise the basis for a common harmonized Mapping framework (hMf) that allows the effective safeguarding of MDoPI. The objectives and the methods underlying these common elements need to be standardized, i.e. the same method should be employed, taking site-specific differences into account. A simple harmonized Mapping framework (hMf) that allows the designation of MDoPIs and the delineation of mineral safeguarding areas in each jurisdiction should subsequently (not in parallel) follow these 6 steps (Tiess et al. 2018): 1. Analysis of the mineral policy, mineral demand forecasts and economic context. 2. Identification and classification of potential MDOPIs. 3. Analysis of competing land uses. 4. Proposing and delineating MSAs for each MDoPI. 5. Validation of MDoPIs and MSAs. 6. Inclusion of MSAs in local spatial planning documents. At the same time, the general assumptions of Mineral Deposits of Public Importance (MDoPIs) assignment and their categorization should take differences into account (Galos et al. 2016):  legal regimes in various EU countries regarding mineral deposits, their ownership, rules of their recognition and development (licensing), and ways of their safeguarding in relation to land use planning;  level of knowledge on mineral deposits and mineral perspective areas in various EU countries;  mineral potential of various EU countries;  basic assumptions in mineral policies of various EU countries (or a lack of such domestic mineral policy in numerous cases). For this reason, the set of qualifying conditions of MDoPI identification and classification (the second step in the harmonized Mapping framework) should be determined individually by each of the countries concerned. The proposed general rules of MDoPI-EU, MDoPI-Cl and MDoPI-Rl assignment are treated as a set of recommendations for each EU country/jurisdiction. These rules are inclusive and each EU country has a possibility to determine its own detailed methodology of the MDoPI assignment, using proposed recommendations, detailing and modifying them where it deems appropriate. 12 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 A general algorithm of the mineral deposits valorization process to assign MDoPIs at appropriate level (MDoPI-EU, MDoPI-Cl, MDoPI-Rl) is as follows:  Collection of a set of information on mineral deposits and mineral potential areas to be valorized within a specific area (EU, country, region);  Dividing mineral objects into three groups depending on the level of geological knowledge: perspective areas with hypothetical resources or promising exploration results, deposits with mineral resources, deposits with mineral reserves;  Assessment of each area/deposit within four main dimensions: geological knowledge, technical and economic, competing land use, and societal dimension (the last one – optionally);  final decisions regarding details of scoring in each dimension (or other methodology adopted), threshold values between MDoPI-EU and MDoPI-Cl, and between MDoPI-Cl and MDoPI-Rl, and then on safeguarding rules – done separately by each EU country (Galos et al. 2016; Tiess et al. 2018). 1.4. case study of mdopi designation in poland In Poland, the pilot valorization was performed for undeveloped and abandoned mineral deposits, as well as for mineral prognostic areasb with inferred resources in the Dolnoslaskie Province (Sw part of Poland). In testing the MDoPI methodology in Poland, the developed mineral deposits with a valid mining license have been disregarded as they are protected under the existing Geological and Mining law. This Act sets out the requirements related to the protection of mineral deposits, underground waters and other components of the environment with regard to the extraction of the mineral from the deposit. finally, the proposed methodology of MDoPI designation (details – see: Kot-Niewiadomska et al. 2017a) has been tested for 81 mineral deposits with indicated and/or measured resources (including: 58 deposits of magmatic and metamorphic crushed and dimension stone, 6 deposits of feldspar raw materials, 10 deposits of kaolin and 7 deposits of glass sand) (Kot-Niewiadomska et al. 2017a; Galos and Kot-Niewiadomska 2018) and for 18 mineral deposits (perspective areas) with inferred resources (Kot-Niewiadomska et al. 2017a). The proposed methodology is based on valorization concerning the level of geological knowledge (Geological knowledge dimension – GK), geological and mining parameters (Technical and economic dimension – TE) as well as wide range of land use and environmental qualifying conditions (Competing land use dimension – ClU) (Table 1). The methb In Poland, prognostic areas concern deposits for which boundaries, geological features and anticipated resources are evaluated on the basis of available geological data, in particular, from isolated excavations or natural outcrops, geological interpretation of geophysical measurements. The admissible error of average deposit parameters and deposit resources estimation may exceed 40% (category D of mineral resources according to a Regulation of the Minister of the Environment on geological documentation of mineral deposits, excluding hydrocarbons, Official Journal of Minister of the Environment, 2015, 987). 13 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 odology was formulated mainly based on the “Valorization of undeveloped industrial rock deposits in Poland” (Nieć ed. 2013) and the Portuguese methodology for defining geological resources protection (Carvalho et al. 2015). The environmental qualifying conditions included in the proposed methodology relate, in particular, to potential limitations referring to existing or planned forms of environmental protection, forests (especially protective), underground waters and high quality soils. These circumstances result from the legislation applicable in Poland, i.e. the Nature Conservation Act, Environmental Protection law, the Act on the Protection of Agricultural and forestry land, and the Act on forests. Finally, according to the assumed MDoPI methodology, from among 81 verified deposits, 15 deposits were proposed as MDoPI-Cl (e.g. majority of feldspar raw materials deposits and selected deposits of dimension stone and kaolin), whereas 42 deposits were qualified as potential MDoPI-Rl (other kaolin deposits, all glass sand deposits and selected deposits of crushed and dimension stone – Table 2). Moreover, selected valorized prognostic areas of crushed and dimension stone have also been classified as MDoPI-RL. Table 1. The set of criteria in the proposed methodology for Mineral Deposits of Public Importance assignment (Galos et al. 2016) Tabela 1. Zestaw kryteriów proponowanej metodologii wyznaczania Złóż Kopalin o Znaczeniu Publicznym General criteria Detailed criteria Total possible result Geological knowledge (GK) GK1 (weight 20%) – availability and quality of basic geological data (four possible values: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0) for perspective areas: Min. Value – 0.75 Max. Value – 3.0 for mineral deposits: Constant value – 3.0 GK2 (weight 30%) – availability and quality of basic geological data in regional scale (four possible values: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0) GK3 (weight 20%) – existing information and knowledge of historical mining (four possible values: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0) GK4 (weight 20%) – current information and knowledge about specific deposit or prognostic area (four possible values: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0) Technical and economic (TE) Mineral quality and quantity (three possible values: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5) Max. value – 3.0 Min. value – 1.0 Mining attractiveness (three possible values: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5) Competing land use dimension (ClU) Nature protection and underground water protection (four possible values: 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5) Max. value – 4.0 Min. value – 0.5 Protection of forest and soil (four possible values: 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5) housing, infrastructure and heritage (five possible values: 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0) TOTAl SCORING: GK+TE+ClU (Min. MDoPI value – 2.25; Max. MDoPI value – 10) 20 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 prognostic areas delineated in Poland is an additional problem. Providing legal protection to all of them is not possible in practice; therefore proper valorization should allow for selecting the most valuable ones. A proper example of this are numerous deposits of the Dolnoslaskie Province, for which an attempt was made to identify those that can be described as deposits of public importance. what is more, there is still a lack of integration of national, regional and local activities in the sphere of spatial planning policy in Poland, especially in the area of mineral deposits (or prognostic areas) safeguarding. without these elements, it is impossible to protect the interests of the state and its citizens regarding mineral resources. The above factors are one of many that affect the need to develop the National Mineral Policy in Poland. reFerences Ad-hoc working Group 2010. Improving Framework Conditions for Extracting Minerals for the EU. Exchanging Best Practice on Land Use Planning, Permitting and Geological Knowledge Sharing. Ad-hoc working Group of the Raw Materials Supply Group 2010. Ad-hoc working Group 2014. Recommendations on the framework conditions for the extraction of non-energy raw materials in the European Union. Ad-hoc working Group of the Raw Materials Supply Group 2014. Carvalho et al. 2015 – Carvalho, j., Marques, C., Martins, l., Cardoso, R., Caxaria, C., Mateus, A. and Dinis, P. 2015. Mineral resources: An inherent Component of sustainable land use management. Methodologies and Practices used in Portugal. fundacao da faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade de lisboa (unpublished manuscript). Deloitte 2017. Study on the review of the list of critical raw materials. Critical Raw Materials Factsheets. DG GROw. British Geological Survey, BRGM, TNO. Dz.U.2001.62.627 – The Act of April 27, 2001 Environmental Protection law. Dz.U.2001.62.627 – Act of April 27, 2001 Environmental Protection law. EEA 2016 – More from less —material resource efficiency in Europe. Country profile – Poland. European Environment Policy. Environmental Protection law of April 27, 2001 (O.j.2001.62.627 of the Republic of Poland). European Commission 2008. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The raw materials initiative – meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe. COM(2008) 699 final. European Commission 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Tackling the challenges in commodity markets and on raw materials. COM(2011) 25 final. European Commission 2017. Study on the review of the list of critical raw materials. Final report – Study (No. ET-04-15-305-EN-N). Deloitte, British Geological Survey, BRGM, TNO for DG GROw. fraser Institute 2017. The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2016. [Online] fraserinstitute.org. Available at: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/survey-of-mining-companies–2016.pdf [Accessed 2018-01-03]. Galos et al. 2016 – Galos, K., Kot-Niewiadomska, A. and Nieć, M. 2016. MINATURA 2020 Project. Deliverable 2.2. Set of qualifying conditions for a Harmonised Mapping Framework (HMF) for each type of Mineral (unpublished manuscript). Galos, K. and Kot-Niewiadomska, A. 2018. Strategic deposits of crushed and dimension stone in Dolnośląskie Province according to their valorization (Strategiczne złoża kamieni łamanych i blocznych Dolnego Śląska w świetle przeprowadzonych waloryzacji) [In:] Glapa, w. ed. Mineral Aggregates (Kruszywa Mineralne), Vol. 2. Wrocław: Wrocław Technical University, Geoengineering, Mining and Geology Faculty (in Polish). Geological and Mining law of 9 june 2011 (O.j.2011.163.981 of the Republic of Poland). hausner, j. ed. 2015. Mineral Policy of Poland. On what in not there but is very necessary (Polityka Surowcowa Polski. Rzecz o tym czego nie ma, a jest bardzo potrzebne). Kraków: GAP foundation (in Polish). 21 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 horvath et al. 2016 – horvath, z., Sari, K., Szabo, K., Vigh, C. and hegymegi, E. 2016. MINATURA 2020 Project. Deliverable 3.1. Multi-sectoral Analysis of Mineral Policies and Land Use Policies in EU Countries (unpublished manuscript). horváth et al. 2018 – horváth, z., Milligan, B., Bleischwitz, R., Sári, K., hamadová, B., Murguía, D., Tiess, G. 2018. MINATURA 2020 Project. Deliverable 3.3. Towards a European vision for Mineral Deposits of Public Importance (MDoPI) in Europe (unpublished manuscript). Kot-Niewiadomska et al. 2017a – Kot-Niewiadomska, A., Galos, K., lewicka, E., Burkowicz, A., Kamyk, j. and Szlugaj, j. 2017a. Methodology of assignment of Mineral Deposits of Public Importance proposed by MINATURA 2020 Project and results of its pilot testing in the Dolnośląskie Province (Poland). Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(3), pp. 71–94. Kot-Niewiadomska et al. 2017b – Kot-Niewiadomska, A., Galos, K., lewicka, E., Burkowicz, A., Kamyk, j. and Szlugaj, j. 2017b. MINATURA 2020 Project. Demonstration and pilot testing of development methodology (to assign MDoPI) at case study level. Application of the proposed method to Poland (unpublished manuscript). McEvoy et al. 2007 – McEvoy, f.M., Cowley, j., hobden, K., Bee, E. and hannis, S. 2007. A guide to mineral safeguarding in England. Nottingham: British Geological Survey Commissioned Report No. CR/07/060. Mineral Resources Datafile 2017. Bilans Zasobów Złóż Kopalin w Polsce wg stanu na 31.12.2016 r. warszawa: Polish Geological Institute Publishing house, 475 pp. (in Polish). MinPol, 2017. Legal framework for mineral extraction and permitting procedures for exploration and exploitation in the EU. Final report – Study. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (unpublished manuscript). Nieć, M. ed. 2013. Valorisation of undeveloped rock minerals deposits in Poland (Waloryzacja niezagospodarowanych złóż kopalin skalnych w Polsce). Wrocław: IGO Poltegor Instytut Publishing House, 201 p. (in Polish). Nieć et al. 2014 – Nieć, M., Galos, K. and Szamałek, K. 2014. Main challenges of mineral resources policy of Poland. Resources Policy 42, pp. 93–103. Nieć, M. and Radwanek-Bąk, B. 2011. Proposal of legal act on protection of undeveloped mineral deposits (Propozycja ustawowej ochrony niezagospodarowanych złóż kopalin). Bezpieczeństwo Pracy i Ochrona Środowiska w Górnictwie, 7(203), pp. 12–17 (in Polish). NSDC2030. National Spatial Development Concept until 2030 (Koncepcja Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju do 2030 roku). warszawa: Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, 240 pp. (in Polish). Pauliuk et al. 2013 – Pauliuk, S., Milford, R.l., Müller, D.B. and Allwood, j.M., 2013. The Steel Scrap Age. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, pp. 3448–3454. Planning and Development Act of 27 March 2003 (O.j.2003.80.717 of the Republic of Poland). Project 2017. National Minerals Policy. Project (Polityka Surowcowa Państwa. Projekt). warszawa: Ministry of Environment, 65 pp. (in Polish). Regulation of the Minister of the Environment on geological documentation of mineral deposits, excluding hydrocarbons – dated 1 July 2015 – Official Journal of 2015 Item 987. Shtiza, A. 2016. Access to raw materials: Industrial minerals prospective & EU policy. Presented at the MINATURA 2020 Pan-European workshop, Cardiff, wales. SRD 2017. Strategy for Responsible Development until 2020 (Strategia na rzecz Odpowiedzialnego Rozwoju do roku 2020). warszawa: Ministry of Development, 417 pp. (in Polish). Tiess, G. and Murguía, D. 2016. MINATURA 2020 Project. Deliverable 2.1. Exploring options for a harmonised mapping framework (unpublished manuscript). Tiess et al. 2018 – Tiess, T., Murguía, D. and hamadová, B. 2018. MINATURA 2020 Project. Deliverable 2.3. Harmonised Mapping Framework (unpublished manuscript). wiland, M. 2015. Concession proceedings versus spatial planning documents (Postępowanie koncesyjne a dokumenty planowania przestrzennego). Mining Science – Mineral Aggregates 22, 1, pp. 159–171 (in Polish). wrighton et al. 2014 – wrighton, C.E., Bee, E.j., Mankelow, j.M., 2014. The development and implementation of mineral safeguarding policies at national and local levels in the United Kingdom. Resources Policy 41, pp. 160–170. [Online] www.minatura2020.eu [Accessed: 2018-10-2]. 22 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 mineral deposits oF public importance (mdopi) in relation to the project oF the national mineral policy oF poland Keywords mineral policy, MINATURA2020, deposits’ safeguarding, mineral deposits of public importance Abstract The functioning of European economies and societies requires a stable and sustainable supply of mineral resources. for 10 years now EU has been developing raw materials initiative to secure European minerals supply. In many cases, areas with known or hypothetic mineral resources, are not sufficiently valued by society and authorities, remain unprotected and face competing land uses with the risk of becoming sterilized. MINATURA 2020 project was born out of a need to develop a harmonised framework which allow a common way of identifying “mineral deposits of public importance” (MDoPI) and their safeguarding via land use planning. The project has left a useful set of guidelines and proposals how to advance on the creation of a European network of MDoPIs to avoid sterilization of “deposits worth safeguarding”. In Poland, the need for legal protection of mineral deposits has been discussed intensively in recent years. Various proposals aimed at better system of mineral deposits safeguarding, especially those which should be recognized as of public importance, have been proposed. however, until now only a few coal deposits were recognized as strategic. Currently, the Polish National Mineral Policy is under preparation. Its overriding objective is to provide access to the necessary minerals, also in the longterm perspective. It assumes among others activities aimed at protection of mineral deposits regarding land use planning system. Paper presents scope and general results of MINATURA2020 project, with details on MINATURA2020 methodology implementation in Poland, Project of the Polish National Mineral Policy with its objectives and key pillars, position of MDoPIs in this Project, and – finally – expected future steps related to MDoPI safeguarding in EU and in Poland. Złoża KoPalIn o ZnacZenIu PublIcZnyM (ZKoZP) w relacjI Do ProjeKtu PolsKIej PolItyKI surowcowej Państwa Słowa kluczowe ochrona złóż kopalin, polityka surowcowa, MINATURA2020, złoża kopalin o znaczeniu publicznym Streszczenie Funkcjonowanie europejskiej gospodarki i społeczeństwa wymaga stabilnych i zrównoważonych dostaw surowców. Od 10 lat Unia Europejska rozwija inicjatywę surowcową dla zabezpieczenia tych dostaw dla gospodarki UE. W wielu przypadkach obszary ze znanymi lub hipotetycznymi złożami 23 Galos et all 2018 / Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management 34(4), 5–24 kopalin nie są wystarczająco zabezpieczone, doświadczając konkurencji ze strony innych kierunków zagospodarowania terenu, z dużym ryzykiem uniemożliwienia przyszłego dostępu do nich. Projekt MINATURA2020 był odpowiedzią na potrzebę rozwoju zharmonizowanych ram, które pozwoliłyby na wypracowanie wspólnej ścieżki identyfikacji złóż kopalin o znaczeniu publicznym (ZKoZP) oraz ich ochrony w procesie planowania przestrzennego. Projekt pozostawił wytyczne i propozycje w zakresie rozwoju europejskiej sieci ZKoZP, aby uniknąć utraty dostępu do „złóż wartych ochrony”. W Polsce ochrona złóż kopalin jest intensywnie dyskutowana w ostatnich latach. Przedstawiono w tym zakresie różne propozycje. Tym niemniej do chwili obecnej tylko kilka złóż węgla zostało uznanych za strategiczne. W chwili obecnej w Polsce przygotowywana jest Polityka Surowcowa Państwa. Jej zasadniczym celem jest zabezpieczenie dostępu polskiej gospodarki do niezbędnych surowców w perspektywie długoterminowej. Zakłada się m.in. działania mające na celu ochronę złóż kopalin w ramach planowania przestrzennego. Artykuł prezentuje zakres i najważniejsze rezultaty projektu MINATURA2020 (wraz ze szczegółami próby implementacji metodyki projektu w warunkach polskich), Projekt Polityki Surowcowej Państwa z jego celami i głównymi filarami, pozycję złóż kopalin o znaczeniu publicznym w tym Projekcie, a także oczekiwane przyszłe kroki mające na celu lepszą ochronę złóż kopalin zarówno w całej Unii Europejskiej, jak i w szczególności w Polsce.