Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-01-Speech-4-192"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-04-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Waste prevention and recycling2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040401.4.4-192"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-04-01-Speech-4-1932
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Suomen kristillisdemokraatit rp (2001-05-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on improving safety at sea (2003-11-20--2004-04-21)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, waste has to be prevented both quantitatively and qualitatively, and at the same time there have to be ways of recovering material defined as waste, so that the quantity of waste for disposal is minimised. This has been the aim in the Community approach to the problem of waste for a long time now, and this has also been the main thread running through the commendable report by my colleague, Mr Florenz. The principles that lie behind waste prevention and its effective treatment and recovery, however, can easily be interpreted as a threat to each other. We have organisations that are opposed to the effective recovery of waste because they fear the successful treatment of waste threatens the principle of prevention. This is madness and the sort of ideological inflexibility the world can no longer afford. Every single means must be used, first prevention, then recovery, and our politicians must be able to find a system in which these objectives do not pose a threat to one another. We will be bad politicians unless we can make the system a more rational one. This means that the definition of waste will be of central importance. Our problem is the differing and often too restricting definitions in the waste sector, as the large number of problem cases before the European Court of Justice shows. This problem has to be addressed though the clarification and harmonisation of legislation. It will be necessary to define the difference between recovery and disposal quickly when the next parliamentary term starts. At the moment it seems that with competition more effective operations really will lead to better efficiency, which in most cases also means eco-efficiency in the use of materials. Thus competition in conjunction with Community legislation already implemented is satisfactorily steering towards the prevention of waste. The trend is absolutely the right one and only needs to be endorsed. The greatest untapped potential still lies in how materials and by-products classified as waste can be recovered so that the use of virgin materials can be reduced and waste disposal made unnecessary. Industry accounts for enormous quantities of waste whose precise composition is known and which at source could be treated separately from the rest of the waste flow. This would facilitate its recovery with the risks fully under control. Europe is acting properly in its aim towards sustainable waste management and there can be no compromise regarding this objective."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph