Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-130"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001115.5.3-130"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when I was appointed rapporteur for the amendment of a directive concerning the incineration of hazardous waste, three years ago, I could not have suspected what it would lead to. A small subject grew into an extensive piece of work owing to the fact that proposals on hazardous and non-hazardous waste were combined in a single directive. My suggestion that we should include them in one directive was supported by the then President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Trittin, and by the Commission, which meant that Parliament’s motion to amalgamate three directives did not meet with a great deal of opposition. The amalgamation had the effect of streamlining Community legislation. Things did not go as swimmingly for Parliament’s amendments from first reading, as the Council rejected most of them.
A chastened Parliament confined itself to adopting sixteen amendments at second reading. The need for conciliation soon became apparent because, as it turned out, the Council was not minded to adopt these amendments.
In order to avoid a costly and exacting official conciliation procedure, informal negotiations were opened in order to see if a compromise could be reached. However, Parliament’s willingness to expedite the procedure demanded flexibility on the part of the Council. That proved to be a sticking point on account of the divergent positions. Ultimately, after some tough negotiating, an outcome was achieved that is worth defending. As rapporteur, I do so with utter conviction. Throughout the entire period, I was able to work well together with the representatives of the Council and the Commission, and was secure in the knowledge that I had the support of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and its secretariat. I would like to sincerely thank all concerned.
I would like, just one more time, to give three reasons as to why the directive on waste incineration is so important. Firstly, the emission of dioxins, as well as the emission of other harmful substances will be drastically reduced. Secondly, the public will have far better access to information about incineration plants. Thirdly, it will substantially reduce the disparity between the requirements governing incineration plants and those governing plants for the co-incineration of waste, such as cement kilns.
But although I am upbeat about the outcome of this directive, it cannot conceal the fact that waste incineration is an emergency solution. After all, we have not managed to avoid the production of waste, nor have we succeeded in introducing recycling. Fortunately, there is talk of progress on the technological front, where the emphasis must be on sustainability. I will give you an example: PVC comprises 0.7% of the total amount of incinerated waste. According to the Commission’s Green Paper, incinerating PVC waste gives rise to a number of problems. We must get straight down to tackling these problems, leaving no stone unturned. Sustainable technology could prove helpful to us in the process.
Finally, I anticipate our being able to tighten up the waste incineration directive in a few years’ time, in close consultation with industry. The people who live in the vicinity of these plants will thank us for it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples