Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070212.14.1-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(
) I too would naturally like to start by thanking both rapporteurs for their very important legislative document that aims to simplify the current legal framework covering the area of waste management. At the same time, it should be noted that the most frequently disputed topic at the European Court of Justice is environmental legislation, a substantial portion of which concerns waste management.
On the one hand, I support the rapporteur in her efforts to prevent extensive comitology. On the other hand, the framework directive is so important for the Union that for all of the articles referred to, namely Articles 5, 11 and 21, it is necessary to insist on the codecision procedure. It would be desirable to re-classify waste incineration as a form of recycling, rather than a form of disposal, which is how it is categorised at present. Recycling also reduces our dependence on primary raw materials.
It is necessary to improve border controls so that some Member States do not become landfills for others. We are very well aware that for many people waste management offers the lure of very lucrative but illegal business opportunities. However, I have a reservation concerning Amendment 70, which modifies Article 30 of the directive, aiming to remove specific qualitative and, especially, quantitative indicators from the waste management programmes of Member States.
If we really want to lower the volume of waste, quantitative indicators are essential. A decrease in volume does not automatically mean that the most hazardous waste will be eliminated. Excessive flexibility within the programmes, or inaccurate and vaguely defined objectives, will not result in the desired outcome, and will certainly be abused by Member States. This is certain to happen since the directive leaves it up to the Member States to achieve results. Waste management programmes must also include quantitative indicators; otherwise the programmes will not be ambitious enough. At the same time, I agree with the rapporteur that the Member States should have their programmes in place within 18 months of the directive coming into effect. It seems to me that three years, as suggested by the Commission, is too long."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"SK"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples