Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-16-Speech-1-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080616.19.1-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I believe we can congratulate the rapporteur. She has certainly managed to achieve an acceptable outcome with the Council. I particularly wish to emphasise the inclusion of the divergent waste hierarchy.
There are, however, minus points, which are truly incomprehensible and which were put into this document by the Council. The first of these relates to animal by-products. We had established in committee that animal by-products would be dropped from this framework waste directive. What the Council has now done is to erect the sort of bureaucratic obstacle that drives farmers to the barricades. It lays down that slurry processed into biogas suddenly becomes a waste product. Do you know what this means? It means that farmers will need a waste-treatment licence and will have to specify the precise volume and nature of the waste to be treated and the place of treatment.
The Animal By-products Regulation lays down explicitly that exceptions apply to slurry. It would now therefore be easier for a farmer to spread slurry on his fields than to process it into biogas. In other words, we are creating bureaucratic obstacles to a practice we actually seek to encourage.
The second point concerns waste oil. The Waste Oil Directive – which, as you know, is now to be repealed – stipulates that waste oils are to be treated and regenerated. There are large volumes being processed under that directive. It has already been established, of course, that waste oils need not be treated in cases where regeneration is not economically viable or technically possible. It has now been laid down that the Member States are to decide. Well, are we now a European Union or have we reverted to a collection of Member States? The fact is that we are quite clearly breaking up the market again. I find that very disquieting. Let me move on to the question of increased self-sufficiency. Local authorities will now determine who may dispose of what and when. Needless to say, there was a great deal of pressure from local authorities with spare incineration capacity. That, however, is the wrong way to go. It is not an option, and this extension is causing the market economy to grind to a complete halt in the realm of waste management."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples