Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.18.1-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have listened carefully to Members’ comments and I would like to give you my further reactions to the proposed amendments.
The Commission was very pleased to see the importance which the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment attaches to the environmental consequences of end-of-life ships and ship recycling and we fully share the concerns expressed by the committee. However, the proposed amendments would, in our view, not be the right way forward for the following reasons. Work is currently being done to address these issues within the fora of the International Maritime Organization, the International Labour Organization and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste. Progress has been made within the IMO towards an international agreement on the subject. It would therefore be appropriate to agree at international level on the solutions to these important problems before changing our internal European Union regulation. On the other hand, we would support a recital referring to the work of the relevant international fora, in line with the Council’s conclusions on ship dismantling of 24 June 2005. We could therefore fully support the compromise proposal on this point.
In addition, there are a number of amendments concerning further restrictions on the free movement of waste for recovery which would, in the Commission’s view, not correspond to the objective of creating clearer and better regulation. The Commission, on this basis, could not accept the proposed amendments 4, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37, 54, 56 and 68. The Commission maintains its statement with regard to Article 12(1)(c) in the common position to which Amendment 31 is linked. However, we could support the compromise proposal on other points.
The question has been raised of coherence between the waste shipment regulation and the waste framework directive, which is now coming up for review. We can confirm that we will ensure that full coherence is maintained between this regulation and the planned revision of the waste framework directive and, of course, we will ensure consistency with regard to definitions in the thematic strategy on waste.
With regard to animal by-products, the Commission’s proposal fulfils the same environmental objectives as Amendment 91. Our objective is to ensure that the necessary environmental safeguards are in place for the shipment of animal by-products. Therefore, our proposal says that the stricter of the two regulations should apply. However, the Commission does not want both regulations to apply at the same time to the same shipment and therefore we cannot accept Amendment 91.
In conclusion, I am pleased to say that the Commission can accept 87 of the 113 proposed amendments, fully or in principle. These proposed amendments include strengthening the enforcement of the regulation, clarification of its provisions and further alignment with the Basel Convention.
I will provide Parliament’s Secretariat with a complete list of the Commission’s positions on the amendments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples