Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070212.14.1-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to thank both rapporteurs for cooperating with so much honesty. I think that the interest so many people and organisations have shown during this first reading in terms of both the strategy and review of the directive demonstrates that waste offers many opportunities. Although waste is increasingly seen as a valuable source of raw material, it also remains a problem. As we heard today, the total amount is on the increase; too little waste is being reused or recycled; existing legislation is often implemented ineffectively and there are also major discrepancies in how the waste problem is addressed in the different Member States. As I see it, there is no doubt that whilst this review contains positive steps towards reducing the harmful effects of waste processing on the environment and health – such as, for example, the five-steps hierarchy, waste prevention programmes for the Member States, a better definition of a number of concepts, criteria to distinguish products from waste, the introduction of the proximity principle, the ban on mixing waste with a view to diluting it and obviously a procedure to clarify when waste stops being waste – many bottle necks remain. Commissioner, Amendment 85, for example, springs to mind which states that landfills where gas is extracted may be considered recovery. This is, as I see it, diametrically opposed to the policy to phase out the dumping of biodegradable waste. I also take the view that Amendments 81 and 82 should not provide for scrapping, precisely because Amendment 39 refers to the ban on incineration at sea. In addition, Amendment 26, where reference is made to the definition of ‘recovery of energy’ should be deleted, in my view, since otherwise, many incineration installations would fall within the scope of recovery, and a free market would be created for waste incineration. This would be completely at odds with the proximity principle, which is, in turn, also very important if we want to achieve a high recycling level. Finally, I do not think there is a place for the introduction of energy efficiency criteria here. This should, instead, be seen in conjunction with a review of the Waste Incineration Directive. A thorough impact study has not been done either.
Finally, we must also certainly ensure that some provisions do not result in achievements attained in some Member States being pared down or that the present policy efforts are being cancelled out. Flanders, the region from which I come, is a European trailblazer in reuse and recycling, and would be affected by this. These high figures are possible only if the local authorities are involved, and also if a number of flanking measures, such as levies and dumping bans, are taken. The Flemish earth-moving regulation, for example, is also liable to suffer by keeping out unpolluted excavated soil from the directive. Different Member States will, in any case, end up with different interpretations where cross-border transports are concerned. I would like to hear what the Commissioner has to say in this respect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples