Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070212.14.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to give Mrs Jackson and Mr Blokland my most sincere thanks for the work they have done. They led us by the hand, so to speak, to reach a consensus supported by a huge majority in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, and to achieve a result that was by no means a foregone conclusion at the outset: improving the consistency of two documents, one on the recycling strategy and the other on the proposed review of the waste framework directive, which are now more consistent than the Commission's original documents.
In particular, I very much appreciated the way in which Mrs Jackson conducted the discussions with us shadow rapporteurs, which allowed us to resolve almost all the problems consensually. That is why I felt rather surprised and also a little hurt, Mrs Jackson, when I saw you had tabled some amendments on behalf of your group that called these agreements into question on one particular point. That places us in a difficult or, I might say, embarrassing position.
Let us look at the priorities. First of all, a highly positive point is that we prioritised the prevention of waste generation much more than the Commission had done: we defined it better and laid down a target for stabilising it by 2012, together with a whole raft of practical monitoring measures. Secondly, there is a point that I am going to fight for to the bitter end, Mrs Jackson. We defined and specifically laid down a five-step hierarchy. Just as in a hierarchy, first you do one thing and only then the second, third and so on, namely prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and lastly disposal. We did not rule out the possibility of departing from this hierarchy, but we tied the possibility to strict evaluation criteria, starting with cost/benefit analysis throughout the life cycle of consumer goods. I am therefore somewhat astounded that you are now calling this solution bureaucratic.
Thirdly, there is a problem that we did not resolve through our compromises and that we must now resolve by putting it to the vote in this Chamber, even though the Committee on the Environment did find what I believe is a good solution: we cannot undermine the hierarchy by regarding energy recovery as recovery, since it is actually disposal. By doing so we would straight away undermine the hierarchy and risk creating undue competition with renewable energies. Let me be quite clear: this is not an ideological rejection of incineration and energy recovery, but I too very much agree with Mrs Brepoels that reaching a definition on this subject should be left to a more appropriate forum.
Is a review of the incineration directive planned? Well, I think that would be the best place to define the issue of energy recovery, and in that respect I have therefore tabled Amendment 136, which I regard as highly reasonable. We should not fill this directive with too many problems, so let us examine the issue more calmly and with some in-depth technical input.
Lastly, I too should like to make a stand on the subject of bio-waste. The subject of composting has been put off for too long, but it is a strategic element in a recycling society and I do not see why we should not at last provide an opportunity for this option, on which there has been agreement for some time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples