Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.3.2-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, over the past few months I have very frequently been asked why we actually need a directive. Is it the creation of a workaholic official of the EU or of a lonely Member of Parliament who is keen to have a directive on this subject, or is it not perhaps the consumption patterns of the European population, who in recent years have displayed extraordinary devotion to the purchase of electronic equipment? The reason is precisely the latter! We generate six million tonnes of electronic waste products in Europe every year. The volume of electronic waste is growing at a rate of more than 3 to 4%; indeed, I believe it has now reached the 5% mark. In about ten years’ time, we expect this electronic scrap heap to have doubled in size.
Let me say to my honourable colleague that raising a target from 40% to 50% in Parliament is an easy game to play. It is just about the easiest thing on earth. But how are the actual waste flows to be organised, how is the market to be persuaded of their benefits, and how are companies to have access to these waste flows in a market economy? These are the really crucial questions. For this reason, the Commission’s proposed target is surely a reasonable starting point. My own view is that we should keep the Commission’s target rather than opting for the excessively high target proposed by a majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.
There is a dispute about lighting equipment. The main protagonist is discussing the matter at this very moment with other protagonists. I believe that lights should be covered by this directive, but they should not be subject to a recycling target. The fact is that we do not have a single document explaining how dismantled and dissected lamps can be recycled in such a way that their components can be reused. I should not like to set a directive in motion without being able to assess its impact. After three years, when we have some experience, we should then set a target for lights. In my opinion, the Commission has made a good proposal, which we shall be happy to adopt.
One of the points at issue in the House is the question of the time at which the manufacturer’s responsibility begins. The Commission has proposed – and the Council takes a similar view – that manufacturers must take back their products from the collection point and meet the cost of that operation. I support this initiative.
One reason I support the initiative is because there are some Members of this House who take the view that we should ultimately compel manufacturers to come and collect used toothbrushes from our bathrooms. I have three children, and those children certainly have enough moral responsibility to take their equipment – computers, radios or whatever – to a prescribed place at the end of its lifetime and to dispose of it properly there. I do not believe we should be pursuing a policy that always assigns responsibility to a third party and never to ourselves as consumers.
The end users are to be able to hand in old equipment free of charge to their retailer and even have it collected in cases where they are buying a replacement. But they have a responsibility if they only intend to dispose of the waste item. They must take it to the collection centre in their town or city. You may call me old-fashioned, but I believe there is a certain educational aspect in all of this. I recall our impassioned debates in this House about the throw-away mentality. Those who were most vociferous then are either no longer here or are no longer prepared to stand up and speak out. The throw-away mentality is an important factor which must also be taken into account when financing is discussed here.
We have heard a host of interesting proposals on this subject. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is a heterogeneous committee, but it renders a valuable contribution in helping to ensure that this Parliament of ours, which is not a ‘normal’ parliament, plays an increasingly large and important role as a ‘normal’ parliament. For this I should like to express my sincere thanks to all my fellow committee members and to all others who have been involved in our work.
Electronic scrap is spirited around in Europe and left in fields, in meadows, in woodland, in ditches or wherever. It is not only an environmental hazard but also a waste of raw materials, because we all know that computers contain valuable components, which really ought to be recovered and ultimately be subject to systematic reuse and recycling targets. This is why I believe it is only right and proper that this directive should see the light of day.
Another reason why this is especially important is that we have already taken the first steps in this direction with the end-of-life vehicle Directive, which differs from the proposed directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment in that the recovery of electrical and electronic waste involves hundreds and thousands of manufacturers, whereas the salvaging of vehicle components concerns only 50 or 60 manufacturers. For this reason, it is very important that we reach consensus on this directive in the House and with the Commission too, because this directive will have repercussions. And if it has repercussions, it must also have a guiding influence. Environmental policy must not be an end in itself; it must have an aim – not only an environmental aim but an aim for companies too, because companies are part of our society, a fact which is just occasionally forgotten in my committee.
We are operating in several categories; after all, we have ten different waste streams, each with its own distinct recycling target. But let me begin with a few words about the points in my draft which the committee endorsed, for example on the date of the entry into force of this directive, which must not be delayed until 2005 or 2006. My children would ask me why I travel to Brussels to work on a directive if the results of that work are not due to be presented until the year 2006 or whenever. We said that the Member States would have to be true to their proclaimed principles and put the directive into force 30 months after the completion of the parliamentary process. After a further 30 months, companies should be working in accordance with the directive. I believe this is the right approach, and I think it likely that the Commission will go along with this line.
The Commission was somewhat lax on the question of targets. How many kilograms do we want to collect every year? We are calling for a fundamental ban on the disposal of electrical and electronic items as unsorted waste. Some participants in this discussion, particularly those from the world of industry, claim that it is a senseless proposal. I maintain the exact opposite. We must reach a point at which it is prohibited to bin an electric shaver, because the general refuse bin is not where it belongs. Although this is stating the obvious, many people have not yet grasped the message. The law of diminishing unit costs also dictates that we must no longer have waste equipment scattered around our continent in future. We must concentrate it in order to reduce the cost of recycling. This is why we have introduced a ban on the disposal of electrical and electronic waste as general refuse and a binding annual target of six kilograms per head of population rather than subscribing to the non-binding target proposed by the Commission.
I believe that this is a warranted step in the right direction. We have also devised a preferential arrangement for the retail trade. We all fully agree that a commercial outlet, if it sells an electrical appliance or an item of electronic hardware, must take it back. But we also know – or at least those who have been town councillors will know – that our shops are located in tightly confined premises in the centres of our towns and cities and do not have the capacity to build even a small shed for the storage of old television sets, not to mention the fact that such a facility would most probably have to be made explosion-proof too. We are proposing that end users should be able to surrender their old equipment absolutely free of charge. However, it need not automatically go back to the place of purchase. Although the retail trade is responsible, the consumer is free to take the used item straight to a general collection point. I believe that this is a good alternative. It is designed to protect traders, because if we impose stringent building requirements on them, they will very quickly move to greenfield sites. But that is precisely what we want to avoid, because we want to maintain the appeal of our town and city centres. This is an important point which, unfortunately, is far too often overlooked.
We believe that the responsibility of manufacturers, like the transposition of the directive into national law, should not be subject to a five-year transitional period but should take effect only 30 months after the entry into force of the directive, together with an arrangement whereby producers are allowed, on a voluntary basis, to show users the cost of collecting, treating and disposing of historical waste in an environmentally compatible way. The specialists know what historical waste is. The term refers to those items of equipment that are already in circulation, some of them unbranded or ‘orphan’ products, the origins of which are unknown. They may have come from bankrupted companies or from retail giants which put them on the market just before Christmas to make life difficult for smaller traders.
Ladies and gentlemen, the processing of this historical waste must be collectively financed. There is no alternative. Anyone who thinks that the processing of historical waste could be individually financed is dreaming. I do believe, however, that it is right to make provision for individual financing in the case of new equipment. There can, of course, be exceptions in some domains where this is not possible. But I should very much like to reward those who make an effort and develop a product that can subsequently be recycled for the good of the environment. These are the regulatory instruments at our disposal. It is all about rewarding, not penalising. And at this point, I should like to make a plea to the Council, whose representative is sitting in front of me here: please take this idea on board and urge the Council to support an arrangement which favours individual financing.
There are also, of course, a few points which my honourable friends and colleagues on the committee did not accept or to which I am opposed. As far as the recycling target is concerned, I believe the committee has been somewhat over-ambitious."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples