Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-16-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080616.19.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I would like to thank all the speakers in this debate for their positive contributions.
Article 14 of the Waste Framework Directive does not prescribe whether private or public authorities should participate in the setting-up and in the operation of such networks, nor does it affect in any possible way the ownership – public or private – of waste-management operations and infrastructures. The division of responsibilities between the public and private sectors is an internal matter that can only be decided by the Member States. If an adequate network of disposal and recovery operations is already in place – be it private, public or mixed – there is no need for additional measures to set it up.
Regarding the concerns relating to the lack of a recycling target for manufacturing and industrial waste, my services will look into the possibility of setting such a target as the first priority within the context of the 2014 review, which is foreseen in Article 8a (point 4).
Regarding the issue of feeding animals with animal by-products such as catering waste, this is regulated by the Animal By-Products Regulation, which is currently under review. It should be addressed in that regulation as the Waste Framework Directive is not the right place to regulate the use of catering waste.
Concerning the question of whether by-product requirements and end-of-waste criteria must be fulfilled in the European Union before shipment to third countries, the Commission confirms that this is the case.
Regarding the question of whether manure should be excluded from the scope of the Waste Framework Directive, manure is not considered waste when it is used as a fertiliser. However, it is considered waste when it is destined for further treatment or disposal operations, for instance incineration, production of biogas or compost and landfilling. Excluding manure from the scope of waste legislation would create a serious gap in environmental protection, since there would be no legal means to control issues such as emissions to air and water, landfilling requirements, noise, odour etc.
Finally, the European Union should promote the production of biogas and the composting of waste. However, biogas and composting plants are not environmentally neutral. They also emit to the air and water and can be a source of nuisance, for instance in terms of odours or noise. Excluding manure destined for biogas production or composting plants from the scope of the Waste Framework Directive would result in excluding such plants from the scope of the IPPC Directive.
To conclude, I should like once again to congratulate and thank Mrs Jackson for her excellent work. The Commission is very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations and can accept the proposed compromise amendments in full.
On the basis of the agreed text, Member States will now have to take a number of measures in order to improve their waste management. The Directive lays down clear definitions and waste management principles, which I trust will resolve the existing interpretation problems, reduce the number of court cases and set a sound legal basis for the functioning of the waste treatment sector.
A number of key elements have been included in the overall compromise package that is now proposed. The most important are these.
Firstly, the environmental objective of the Directive is now clear and ambitious. The level of environmental protection has not only been maintained but also strengthened in several cases, such as hazardous waste.
The co-legislators have agreed on a number of cornerstone definitions, including definitions of waste, prevention, recycling and recovery. These definitions are clear and understandable. In addition, the Directive successfully incorporates the provisions of two other directives to make the legislation more accessible while maintaining the high standards of environmental protection.
A distinction between recovery and disposal has been made clear, with a possibility for the Commission to further delineate this distinction should there be such a need.
A clear five-step ‘waste hierarchy’ has been set up which promotes waste prevention and allows for disposal of residual waste only as the last resort. At the same time, it allows for the necessary scope of flexibility justified by sound life-cycle considerations.
I would like to recall the importance given by Parliament during the negotiations to strengthening the upper levels of the ‘waste hierarchy’ by introducing the recycling targets. If these targets are not met in 2020, the Commission can take Member States to court for non-compliance with the requirements of the Directive. In addition, the current formulation introduces a more regular and thorough process of monitoring the measures taken by Member States to attain the required targets in advance of the 2020 deadline, instead of a simple check of the actual compliance levels in 2020 when waste management systems are already in place. Such an early enforcement process can help to avoid unpleasant surprises in 2020.
Last but not least, the Directive introduces a completely new dimension on waste prevention which the Commission is keen to pursue immediately after its adoption and transposition. The Member States will now have to establish their national waste management plans and networks which need to reflect the principles and new obligations set out in the revised Directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples