The National Mineral Planning Conference last week posed the question: “Sustainable minerals supply – Are we there yet?” Do you think delegates would have come away with the answer to that question ?
I think that based on what they heard in the presentations at the Conference, the delegates are most likely to have come away with an answer, which is “Don’t know”. There seems little chance that they will have concluded with a firm “Yes” or “No”. The reason for that, as demonstrated by the speakers, is that sustainability means different things to different people.
How well is the minerals industry adapting to the presumption in favour of sustainable development that the NPPF introduced?
In order to have their sites included in Mineral Plans and ultimately to obtain planning permission, minerals operators would be justified in thinking that under most people’s definition of sustainable development they have been operating sustainably for many years. Therefore it isn’t really a question of adapting following the introduction of the NPPF. Having said that, progress with Mineral Plans continues to be much too slow and very few planning applications have been submitted because of the economic climate, so maybe the need for adaption hasn’t really been tested.
What are the main challenges in making sustainability the focus of the planning system?
A major challenge has to be the fact that there is no shared understanding of what constitutes sustainable minerals development and indeed sustainable development of any kind. At the Conference, Lonek Wojtulewicz speaking for the Planning Officers Society got closest to a workable definition when he described the main characteristic of sustainable development as that which “.....gives more back to society than it takes”. That still leaves the problem of measuring what “more” is.
What are the opportunities in working in a sustainable way?
Mineral operators don’t have a choice of working sustainably or unsustainably but I would argue that mineral working in the right place and with appropriate mitigation has more scope to be sustainable than any other form of development. We know that an adequate supply of minerals is essential to the economy (NPPF). We know that society depends on materials provided by the minerals industry; “If you can’t grow it you have to mine it.” But where mineral working can really score is on the environmental element of sustainability. Unlike most forms of development, mineral working is a temporary use of land. In accord with the POS definition of sustainable development, minerals operators have unique opportunities to hand back restored sites that greatly increase biodiversity and amenity value, at the same time as providing society with essential materials.
Are the various regulators at local and national level changing their practices sufficiently to allow sustainability to flourish?
NO. Outside the planning system, regulation by the Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage are all components of the “licence to operate” minerals. Each of those organisations views the potential effects of mineral working through the window of its own specific interests, and will object to proposals and regulate operations simply to protect those interests. Research conducted by an MPA member revealed that sustainability does not feature in any of the policy documents of the Environment Agency. Only the planning system is equipped to regulate on the basis of the “balance of interests” approach that is essential to deliver sustainability. At the conference it was refreshing to hear the Natural Resources Wales speaker recognise the importance of their role as advisers to the planning planning system rather than arbiters of whether or not development should proceed.
How is
MPA
working with wildlife organisations to achieve sustainability?
On a national scale, the
MPAhas been working for many years with Natural England, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. Nature conservation initiatives include Nature After Minerals with Natural England and the RSPB, which has now been rolled-out in Europe as the RESTORE project. The
MPAworking in partnership with Natural England has established a biennial awards scheme for biodiversity achievement by aggregate operators. There are many more joint working arrangements locally with organisations such as The Bumblebee Conservation Trust and the Freshwater Habitats Trust.
Do
MPA
members increasingly see themselves as stewards of the environment?
Members of the
MPAhave some very large land holdings even though only around 0.1% of the UK land area is actively used for aggregate production. At the end of 2012 almost 10 thousand hectares in the control of
MPAmembers had been returned or was in process of being returned to Priority Habitat status. The facts speak for themselves.
How important are minerals to economic growth in the UK?
Research commissioned from Capital Economics in 2012 highlighted the significant economic contribution of the mineral products sector and it is worth repeating some of those metrics; a £9 billion turnover, £4 billion GVA, productivity twice as high as the national average and a customer base contributing £400 billion to the economy.
How are
MPA
members working on mineral site aftercare and restoration to meet environmental standards?
Members of the
MPAwork with local conservation bodies and community organisations as mentioned earlier. Member companies are developing considerable in-house expertise, the evidence of which is the individual awards for outstanding contributions to biodiversity that form part of the biennial awards scheme.
How can people interested in
MPA
and sustainability find out more?
There are links to further information on all these matters on the
MPA website.