Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-05-Speech-1-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050905.19.1-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware of the serious background to the proposed directive on waste from extractive industries. It is still only a couple of years since we saw huge accidents involving collapsing tailings dams in Spain and Romania. In the case of Romania, the accident meant that important river systems were poisoned with cyanide. These accidents show the huge environmental risks that arise from mining waste not being handled correctly, as well as the subsequent international consequences. In addition to these major accidents, there has also been a series of minor ones and a kind of continuous poisoning of the environment from improperly handled waste from many years ago, dotted about the countryside and causing, for example, heavy metals to leak out into the water systems.
At present, the European Union has no effective rules for dealing with these environmental problems. The regulations governing waste have not been adapted to cover this type of waste. With the proposed directive, something can be done about this. The cyanide method that was used in Romania would be banned under the proposed directive. We would make tough demands on the safety and supporting capacity of tailings dams. We would require mining companies to be serious in their approach, to return the countryside to the way it was and to be able, in economic terms too, to guarantee that the countryside is restored to its former state following mining.
Many of the amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading have been included by the Council of Ministers in the common position, and that is of course excellent. Other important proposals have, however, been rejected. It is therefore important for us to adopt those amendments from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety whereby we are now trying to put back what was adopted at first reading.
I want to give a few examples of such changes. We do not just want an inventory to be drawn up of old mining waste. We also want something to be done about the situation, and this, in Parliament’s proposal, involves obligations. We also believe that the environmental problems that arise in excavation voids following extraction of minerals should be covered by the directive. In the Council’s common position, large groups of waste are exempted from essential parts of the directive, for example the financial guarantee. If this is to be prevented, we must adopt Amendment 13. It is important to remember that waste that is not dangerous in the chemical sense can also cause very serious environmental problems. That also applies to inert waste.
We also propose that there should be greater stringency where exemptions are concerned. It should not be possible to grant long-term exemptions whereby waste can be put to one side. Instead, proper waste-processing facilities should be built. Such long-term exemptions now form part of the Council’s position.
These are some examples of amendments through which we in Parliament want to see a significantly more far-reaching, effective and progressive directive than is the case with the Council’s common position. Voting against these amendments would be tantamount to lowering our environmental ambitions.
A stringent and constructive directive in this area will not only be of benefit to the environment but will also favour the best, most modern and most environmentally aware mining companies that are also most serious in their approach. It will bring about speedier improvement in the industry. Commendably, it will also penalise those which do not accept their environmental responsibility. It will favour environmental technology and research. It may also make the EU a world leader in the area of environmental technology where mining is concerned, which would be another positive factor and might mean our being able to help other regions of the world.
With the proposals put forward in my report by Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, we have an opportunity to prevent serious accidents, similar to those in Spain and Romania, from happening in the future. We can ensure that we do not have to see more such accidents. We have the opportunity to reduce the amount of poisons released into our water systems. We also have the opportunity consistently to do something about damage wrought upon the environment in the past and to obtain better water status. Let us take advantage of these opportunities.
Last but not least, I wish to thank my fellow MEPs for their constructive cooperation. A number of fellow MEPs from a variety of political groups have put forward amendments that have improved this report. I also wish to thank the shadow rapporteurs, and I want to thank the Commission for its very constructive cooperation so far."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples