Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.3.2-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the WEEE directive increases producer responsibility for current and historic domestic waste, electrical and electronic equipment from mobile phones, toasters and PCs to washing machines. This waste is growing at up to 5% per year due to technological innovation and market expansion and contains a percentage of dangerous substances that are currently finding their way into municipal landfills, obviously posing clear environmental hazards. Hence, the need for the second proposed directive to reduce the risk of impact on human health and the environment of the production, use, treatment and disposal of WEEE.
The directives deal with producer responsibility, separate collection, better treatment, reuse, recycling, costs, targets, labelling, alternatives to dangerous substances such as lead, mercury, PBB, etc., while allowing some exceptions. But let us be sure, with the proper application of the much-toted precautionary principle, that the alternatives are in fact safer from a toxicity and hazard point of view, in every respect including the ability to flame retard.
Have we an acceptable substitute for lead solder, for example? While I endorse both directives, I have tabled an amendment to Article 15 (4) of the WEEE directive inserting a new subparagraph based on a similar clause in Article 52 of the relatively recent EC Directive 99/31 on the landfill of waste. I consider this to be as good a basis as any for taking account of the genuine and practical difficulties of certain Member States in meeting the ambitious collection and recovery targets proposed in Articles 44 and 62 respectively of the WEEE directive.
Important proposals such as these have to take into balanced account the significant variations in recycling infrastructure, economies of scale, demographics and geographical circumstances in certain Member States. It is unrealistic and unfair to require Member States with acknowledged deficiencies in recycling infrastructure and reprocessing capacity – for whatever reason – and which lack reliable data on WEEE arisings to achieve the same ambitious targets within specified short time frames as other Member States which already have all or most of the requisite infrastructure in place.
It should be borne in mind that the proposed targets are based on the state-of-the-art recycling pilot study conducted in Eindhoven in the Netherlands, which has the requisite infrastructure and population density. Ireland, Greece, Portugal, not to mention the accession countries, will have definite problems with the current proposals unless amended."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples