There could be different ways to solve this problem, but, according to Hagelüken, there are almost no initiatives in this field. There was discussion about his proposal to implement provisions to take out catalytic converters from old cars that are exported to countries where no emission legislation or proper recycling practice is in place (if no unleaded fuel is available, the catalysts will be destroyed very soon).

Karsten Krause (T&E, Transport and Environment) approached the issue from the point of view of environmental NGOs. He proposed to develop a scheme to differentiate between the PGM source, according to sustainability criteria. Such criteria should be developed in a multi-stakeholder processes, following developments in other fields like forestry/timber (FSC) or palm oil (RSPO). It would allow for distinguishing the acceptable from the unacceptable production and promote corporate responsibility. In addition, Krause addressed the need for harmonising the implementation of the ELV-directive in the EU member states and to find a way to extend producer responsibility beyond the borders of the EU. Krause’s proposals provoked a lively discussion.

Summary of the Presentations

Prof. Dr. Armin Reller ( University of Augsburg ) gave an introduction into the general problems of the production and consumption of scarce materials such as PGM. Although he did not foresee an absolute scarcity for PGM, he addressed the economic and ecological risks of the dependency of key technologies on scarce metals. New technologies competing for these metals may lead to sudden changes in the market situation and create substantial business risks. Moreover, there are unknown risks of dispersion into the environment. Reller pleaded for a combination of two strategies: closing the material loop by raising the recycling rate and, in the longer term, developing alternative technologies for substitution of scarce materials. Proper statistical information is a prerequisite for implementing effective policies in this field, according to Reller.

Anton V. Berlin (Norilsk Nickel) gave a presentation on the Norilsk Nickel company, its strategy and its activities to improve the environmental situation at its mining and processing plants. Berlin made a clear distinction between the situation during Soviet times, which was characterised by the use of outdated technology, inadequate management and, as a result, high pollution figures and the situation after the transformation of Norilsk Nickel into a modern company. Both at the locations in Norilsk and at the locations at the Kola Peninsula, radical reductions of emissions are currently taking place. SO2 emissions, for example, are being reduced as much as 90% at Kola and 75% in Norilsk. In Norilsk, SO2 will be transformed to elementary sulphur by using natural gas. Moreover, Norilsk is now implementing ISO 14001 for all its mining and processing facilities. In reaction to a question about Norilsk Nickel’s allegedly low degree of transparency about its production figures and emissions, Berlin admitted that until the recent past, there were severe limitations for publishing data, because of Russian legislation which did not allow Norilsk Nickel to publish any data about precious metals. This legislation has been changed, so that Norilsk Nickel will report much more transparent information in the future, also in the framework of ISO 14001.

Prof. Vladimir Masloboev director of the Institute of the problems of the North gave an impression of the severe pollution caused on the Kola peninsula and in the Norilsk Region by industrial metal mining and processing. The problems are serious. In the direct vicinity of the industrial facilities, almost no vegetation and animal life remains. Over the years, Masloboev’s institute monitored this pollution and set up pilot projects on how to restore the ecological balance and bring back flora and fauna.