Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-077"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070212.14.1-077"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, it is with gratitude that I take on the task of enlarging on the waste strategy report, which met with unanimous support in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Before I do so, though, I should like to thank my fellow Members for their good cooperation and the unanimous support that I just mentioned. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that waste is not a controversial issue in this House. The objective of the resolution adopted by the Committee on the Environment is to give clear direction to future waste policy, the core goal of which is to protect the environment and public health. The Committee on the Environment is largely agreed on the guiding principles in this respect, namely the precautionary principle, the 'polluter pays' principle, self-sufficiency, proximity and producer responsibility.
Unfortunately, I have to say, however, that these principles were generally ignored when the report was fleshed out further. Allow me to demonstrate this with an example. There is broad agreement on the five-steps of waste hierarchy which comprises prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and, as a last resort, removal. This waste hierarchy is included in both Mrs Jackson’s report and my own. However, amendments have been tabled that mean that the waste hierarchy has become so flexible that one could completely circumvent it. I would argue in favour of holding firm to the provision in paragraph 16 of the resolution, namely that the waste hierarchy can only be deviated from if a certified life cycle analysis clearly demonstrates that this protects the environment more effectively.
Another issue is that of changing the definitions. The main reason for changing a definition is to change its wording for the better or to do the environment a favour. Changing definitions is not meant to make it easier to achieve objectives, to improve one’s image or to be able to corner the market. I should like to quote two important examples of this, namely by-products and the difference between recovery and removal.
Turning to by-products first, according to paragraph 10 of the resolution, we have to be very careful about declassifying waste. If something is no longer waste, it no longer falls within the environmentally-protecting waste legislation, in which case waste can be transported anywhere. Creating a new category of so-called by-products constitutes an additional risk. It is not clear under which regime this falls and the use, or misuse, of this category is set to rise astronomically.
Secondly, with regard to removal versus recovery, the discussion about the difference between recovery and removal has been going on for years. The discussion mainly revolves around the question as to when incineration of mainly household waste can be considered recovery. The intention has always been to arrive at a clear distinction. The opinion of the Committee on the Environment is included in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the resolution. Waste intended for energy recovery or incineration must in any event meet the emission standards of the Waste Incineration Directive. The Committee on the Environment also takes the view that the same environmental standards must apply to waste incineration and waste co-incineration, in other words, equal emission standards and equal criteria for energy efficiency. In addition, I have reached the conclusion that it is always better to consider waste incineration as removal. The objective of waste incineration is always removal. This achieves the necessary clarity and is in keeping with judgments of the European Court of Justice. The final point, as formulated in paragraph 31 of the resolution, is a ban on dumping waste that can be incinerated and waste that can be re-used and recycled.
Finally, I should like to call on the Commission to take paragraph 30 of the resolution seriously. This is about the long awaited proposals for directives on organic waste, building and demolition waste and sludge waste. This has been in the Sixth Environmental Action Programme since 2002, and it is high time the Commission launched these proposals so that we can create a well regulated recycling society."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples