Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.13.2-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe being a well-ordered, clean and ecologically-minded place, there is particular interest in waste policy, and this evening we turn our attention to the waste produced by mining.
Needing as we do the riches of the earth in order to live, we seek them out, process them and use them. They are of differing value, and it is their utility value that is decisive. The question arises of whether all of what we do not at present use or process is to be categorised as waste. I do not believe that it is.
In order to get at the material deeper below the surface, good soil, earth and overburden are removed, transported away and later tipped back onto the excavated sites, thus guaranteeing the return of fertile fields and meadows, in other words, that the earth will be as good as it was before.
What made discussions in Committee so difficult was the definition of waste, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, in its report, the Sjöstedt report, has opted very firmly for the definition that is already in the Waste Framework Directive. We are in favour of real waste – polluted material or stones – being properly removed and disposed of. Overburden and topsoil – at least as the terms are used in German – constitute reusable materials that are vitally important elsewhere, in that, without them, opencast mines could not be properly filled in, and recultivation would be impossible without topsoil.
All those who engage in extractive work, or who make incisions in nature, are also under an obligation to leave behind them tidy, orderly and, above all, hazard-free land when their work is done, so it is right that the plans should include a contractual provision for renaturation and recultivation with effect from the commencement of work. We lay down sureties for this; these must, however, be both secure and flexible. This is where the Member States are under an obligation to lay down criteria, which must then be approved by the Commission.
We are, above all, concerned about the misdeeds of the past, the incorrectly decommissioned mines, the tailings that were piled up; this is what we term historical waste. It is right and proper that we should speak up in favour of making an inventory of the one and removing the other, but this requires more time. There is a need for criteria that are capable of being met and put into practice. In Amendments Nos 71 and 72, the rapporteur does not go far enough. A directive on mining waste does not have to repeat and recapitulate everything that is already regulated in other European Union directives, such as the Landfill Directive, the Water Framework Directive and the Waste Framework Directive.
I would again like to point out, by way of conclusion, that all our efforts must have sustainability as their objective. Environmental, economic and social considerations must be weighed in the balance, no less when approving plant than when restructuring it and imposing conditions on waste management plans."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples