Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-329"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.24.2-329"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is a very tangible and practical background to this directive on which we are now to take a decision. It is the major disasters that occurred a few years ago, involving collapsing mine embankments, above all in Romania and Spain. They were environmental disasters that had huge consequences for the surrounding environment and that also poisoned the water systems.
Finally, I should also like to take this opportunity to thank those with whom I have worked, including the shadow rapporteurs for the various groups whose constructive cooperation I have enjoyed. I should like to thank the officials of the European Commission who, this time, have been excellent to collaborate with, together with the Presidency, which conducted a very constructive conciliation. It has been a simple matter to cooperate with them and to find practical solutions to the various problems we faced.
In addition, there are our constant environmental problems in which waste from existing and old plant spreads heavy metals and other poisons in our immediate environment. This means that a special directive is needed to regulate waste from the mining industry and other extractive industries.
When we look at the proposal put forward by the Commission a few years ago and at the proposal on which we are to take a decision tomorrow, there are significant differences. Parliament has definitely helped make this directive better and more forceful. A host of Parliament’s amendments were adopted as early as at first reading, and quite a few have been added at this reading.
I should like to highlight a number of specific parts of this report as being particularly important. Firstly, rules on embankment safety have been devised to prevent this type of disaster from occurring in the future. The method involving high concentrations of cyanide, used in Romania, is also banned by this directive. There will be clear rules on authorisation and on how this is to take place, and it will be possible to see which environmental problems can be remedied. An absolute obligation is also laid down to respect the Water Directive, whereby no water status deterioration may be caused.
There are also rules to the effect that the site at which the mining takes place must be rehabilitated. This directive is to put an end to the era in which waste and damaged sites were left behind. So that it might do this, a financial guarantee is introduced for which companies must earmark resources for the purpose of rehabilitating the sites at which they have engaged in mining.
When it comes to the new Member States, above all Romania but also Bulgaria, we reached a stage during the conciliation when these countries produced declarations in which they undertook not to seek exemptions but instead to respect all the rules of the directive. This is important, especially because Romania has significant problems in this area. When it comes to historical waste, the Member States are required to compile an inventory whereby they have to investigate where there may be historic waste causing environmental problems. Overall, there will be a significant improvement in the environmental situation in the EU.
The arguments against these measures have mainly been financial in the sense that the measures would cost companies money. It is important to realise, however, that the environmental costs of rehabilitating the land would be part of companies’ production costs and that this is only right. Not including them in production costs would benefit the less than serious players. A directive such as this favours serious mining companies that accept responsibility for their environmental policy. This directive will also make it easier to produce new environmental technology, enabling the historical waste to be dealt with, and it will provide European industry with an opportunity in this sphere. Last but not least – and most important of all – is the fact that it will benefit the environment and the health of those who live in the areas concerned.
The directive is not, of course, perfect. Directives are very rarely perfect. There are a few aspects of it I should like to have seen given more weight. The rules governing waste not classified as dangerous are weaker than they should be. This is due to the Council, which made changes for the worse to the directive at first reading. I did not obtain the decision I should have liked from Parliament that would have enabled these changes to be negotiated away.
When it comes to waste plants, the definition is too weak and too generous towards the industry, and this is in danger of creating certain loopholes. Where historic waste is concerned, there are no clear requirements to take measures for dealing with this. It is important to realise, however, that under the EU’s other environmental legislation, above all the Framework Water Directive, there is an absolute obligation to deal with those cases in which historic waste is seen to lead to water status deterioration. This means that the directive as a whole is still sound. We can be satisfied with the work we have done during the last few years."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples