Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.3.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Florenz for his work in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the excellent cooperation he has established between all the groups and with the Commission.
We agree that a mechanism to ban new substances should be set up. It is of course important, and in line with the Chemicals Strategy, that we allow such a development and add on new substances. We admit that today we do not have enough risk assessments and evidence to make a complete list of all the existing flame retardants, including the risks of taking them out of some substances where they prevent fire, etc. The review should cover all potential hazardous substances.
I turn to Mr Lund's question on Denmark. Remember that the aim of these directives is to establish a high common level of protection. These products are marketed throughout the European Union, and that is why it is necessary to have a high level of protection in the whole of the EU. At the same time we know that Sweden, Denmark and other countries which have effective legislation have not been forced to abandon their legislation. This is what Sweden and Denmark feared, but it did not happen. It has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. This will also have to be done for these substances. We want to establish a high level of protection for the whole of the European Union.
Several Members have mentioned the 'visible fee'. The Commission thinks that this amendment is unnecessary. A 'visible fee' is possible as long as it does not create trade distortions. Nowhere is it said that producers cannot inform consumers of the costs of waste management. I think these were the most important questions raised.
Now we are confronted with a total number of 136 amendments: 100 on the proposal on electronic waste and 36 on the proposal on hazardous substances.
On the first proposal, overall, the Commission can accept 36 amendments in full, 11 in part and 22 in principle.
The Commission can accept Amendments Nos 3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 18 to 25, 27 to 29, 36, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47 to 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 59 to 61, 64, 66 to 68.
Twenty-two amendments can be accepted in principle: 2, 8, 9, 30, 32, 38, 41, 44, 53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 75, 77, 83 to 86, 95 and 100. In particular, as regards Amendments Nos 9 and 35, the Commission can accept that Member States take measures with a view to achieving a separate collection rate of 6 kg per person per year. Concerning Amendment No 44, it is important to leave freedom to Member States on how to organise the collection, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. Amendment No 52 may give rise to practical difficulties, but can also be accepted in principle.
Eleven amendments can be accepted in part: No 6 (second part, in principle), No 11 (second part, except the terms in brackets), No 13 (the text will have to be shortened and simplified), No 17 (second and third parts, in principle), No 26 (except the term ‘consumables’), No 35 (first paragraph, second paragraph in principle, fourth paragraph, seventh paragraph in principle, eighth paragraph, ninth paragraph in principle), No 37 (except paragraph 5), No 46 (second and third parts, in principle), No 70 (except the part referring to printed circuit boards; the entry on capacitors can be accepted in principle) Nos 71 and 80 (the reference to Regulation 2037/2000 can be accepted).
On the second proposal, overall the Commission can accept five amendments in full, two in part and twelve in principle.
The amendments acceptable in full are Nos 1, 9, 12, 13 and 17.
We are tackling the specific problem of electrical and electronic waste for the following reasons. We have heard them before, but I repeat that this is the fastest growing part of the waste stream – indeed, it is growing three times faster than other waste streams. Each of us produces on average about 14 kgs per year of such waste. By the year 2010, when this directive will be fully operational, electrical and electronic waste will account for over 8% of the entire municipal waste stream.
The Commission can accept Amendments Nos 4, 7, 10, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 35 in principle. As regards Amendments Nos 4 and 10, the Commission agrees that the scope of the directive on restrictions on substances may be broadened on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. However, this should be done in accordance with certain principles, not least those set out in the Chemicals Strategy. The Commission can accept to advance the date of phase-out from 2008 to 2006.
Amendment No 11 can be accepted in the part which refers to consumer safety and Amendment No 23 (inclusion of category 10 in the scope).
Ninety per cent of this electrical and electronic waste is currently landfilled or incinerated with no pre-treatment. This means wasted resources, both in terms of the costs of disposal and the poor use of natural resources.
Electrical and electronic equipment is a major source of certain hazardous substances in the waste stream. Just one example illustrates this: 40% of the lead in landfills and 50% of the lead in incineration comes from this type of equipment.
Lastly, since Member States are already acting in this area, there is a strong case for Community coordination.
The main aim of the proposals for directives is to prevent electrical and electronic equipment from being landfilled or incinerated. To achieve this objective, the directive sets out a range of requirements.
Member States are required to set up separate collection schemes from households; consumers have the right to dispose of their waste free of charge and producers are responsible for taking the waste from central collection points and ensuring that it is properly treated through recovery and re-use. In addition, the directive requires the substitution of certain hazardous substances, such as lead and mercury, by 2008.
Let me answer some of your questions. I shall begin with the question by Mr Davies. I understood him to mean that if these light bulbs were exempted, it would mean that they would be slightly cheaper. However, there is really no contradiction in collecting these light bulbs. It is very important to include them in this kind of system. It will still be cheaper to produce an environmentally-friendly light bulb. We have not set up specific recycling targets for light bulbs, only for fluorescent lamps. I think the producers of these lamps would like to be included in this scheme.
We are all concerned about brominated flame retardants. The Commission considers that there is sufficient evidence to ban the use of two categories of brominated flame retardants, PBB and PBDE – that is against the background of the risk assessments being carried out on them. We have enough evidence to be able to ban them."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples