Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-287"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.10.2-287"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am pleased to say that the Commission can accept 26 amendments fully and a further 23 amendments in principle or in part. Certain amendments to Article 13 on objections to waste for recovery pursue national solutions rather than solutions at Community level, and these amendments are particularly aimed at addressing the issues of so-called standard dumping in relation to waste destined for recovery by allowing a number of further justifications for objecting to shipments destined for recovery.
Amendment 95 proposes to allow tacit consent in relation to shipments of hazardous waste for recovery. As is also stressed in the explanatory memorandum, this is not acceptable to the Commission. Firstly, we have to apply the precautionary approach to shipments of hazardous waste within the Community and, secondly, we have to respect the Basel Convention's requirements in this respect. The Basel Convention is very clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Written consent for shipments of hazardous waste must be applied.
The Commission supports the amendments which pursue the same goal as the Commission proposal, namely the promotion of EU standards and certain internationally-agreed guidelines in the country of destination outside the Community. The guidelines added to the list – the ILO guidelines on ship-breaking and the OECD guidelines on personal computers – can also be accepted.
Lastly, with regard to impact assessment, there is none. However, the system of notification and information is a well-established one. There is no specific impact assessment.
As we all know, the problem relates to the fact that waste for recovery travels almost freely within the single market and, at the same time, waste treatment that respects higher standards is often more costly than conventional waste treatment.
I agree with the rapporteur that we can allow competition on costs but not on environmental standards. However, we are legally obliged through the Treaty to safeguard the environment while also respecting the rules of the internal market. A solution can therefore be best found at Community level and should be based on three main elements. Firstly, the establishment of standards at EU level through the extension of the IPC Directive; secondly, the establishment of guidelines regarding sham recovery and thirdly, clearer distinctions between the different recovery and disposal operations.
I agree with those who say that it is not easy to see a solution until this long-term solution is found or established, but we in the Commission definitely recognise the problem and the need to discuss a possible solution in the meantime, and this will be part of the process from now on.
Another issue of concern to the Commission is the proposed banning of the interim treatment operations. Amendments 13, 14, 34 and 41 propose banning shipments of waste for interim treatment operations and define recovery and disposal operations as only covering final treatment and not interim operations. The Commission believes that an outright ban would both lack environmental justification and would conflict with the Treaty. Further, the Commission believes that it is essential that the horizontal definitions of recovery and disposal operations as established in the Waste Framework Directive are adhered to within this regulation. Establishing different definitions would be both inconsistent and unnecessarily complicated.
This issue of consistency with existing legislation also arises in other amendments. Certain amendments to Article 13 aim to establish criteria to classify a treatment as recovery and address the issue of sham recovery. In fact, such criteria could be among several deemed relevant for the distinction between recovery and disposal in general, which is a horizontal issue which should be settled in the context of the Waste Framework Directive rather than in the specific context of this regulation.
Even though the Commission might not entirely disagree with the substance of the proposed clarifications, there is a strong argument for consistency in the lists in the annexes and if changes are required they should, as a first step, be introduced at their point of origin.
Another element regarding Annex V, namely that of giving priority to the EU hazardous list above the Basel non-hazardous list in relation to the so-called Basel ban on exports of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD countries, can be supported – Amendments 69 and 70.
Let me just make a brief comment on the question of the double legal basis. As the explanatory memorandum establishes, the primary objective of the regulation is protection of the environment. That main objective has been maintained in the new proposal and the legal basis is in Article 175 of the EC Treaty: environment. However, as regards the provisions of Titles IV, V and VI on exports out of, imports into and transit through the Community to and from third countries, it can be argued that these are rules which pursue an overall and general environmental objective, as well as rules on international trade. Environmental rules, therefore, also apply to the trade regime and are linked to it. Therefore, the legal basis as regards the specific provisions in these three titles is Article 133 of the EC Treaty."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples