Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-263"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.11.2-263"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Florenz for the work carried out in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and for the cooperation with the Commission.
What about small and medium-sized enterprises? The Committee on the Environment has voted in favour of deleting a temporary exemption for SMEs from the financing obligations of the directive. We can accept this point as we think that practice has shown that there are no excessive costs for these companies and that such an exemption is not needed, and it might even lead to market distortions.
Mr Blokland, I hope that any day now we will be able to present the batteries proposal and I am working hard on that.
Finally, a total of 82 amendments have been tabled on the WEEE directive and 18 on the RoHS directive. On the waste electrical and electronic equipment proposal, the Commission can accept 32 amendments in full, two in part and 20 in principle. The Commission can accept Amendments Nos 9, 11-19, 24, 27-37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 50, 57, 65, 76 and 77. In Amendment No 23, the Commission supports a new paragraph 1 and paragraph 1(b), last subparagraph in full and paragraph 1(b), third and fourth subparagraphs as well as paragraph 2 in principle. In Amendment No 73, the Commission can accept the first part. In Amendments Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, the first, third and fourth sentences can be accepted in full. In Amendments Nos 20, 21 and 41, the first sentence can be accepted in full. Amendments Nos 42, 48, 49, 51-55, 66, 78 and 92 can be accepted in principle.
On the RoHS proposal, the Commission can accept four amendments in full, one in part and seven in principle. The amendments acceptable in full are Nos 3, 4, 10 and 17. Amendment No 5 can be accepted in part – first paragraph – and in Amendments Nos 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9, the first paragraph can be accepted in full and Amendments Nos 13 and 15 in principle.
I thank all Members for this important debate.
Let me briefly recall why we are tackling the specific problem of electrical and electronic waste. It is the fastest-growing part of the waste stream, indeed it is growing three times faster than the average. Each of us produces on average about 14 kgs per year of this waste and by the year 2010, when this directive is fully operational, electrical and electronic waste will account for over 8% of the entire municipal waste stream. Once adopted and implemented the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment will allow us to divert this type of waste from landfills and incinerators to environmentally sound re-use and recycling.
The directive on restricting hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment will prevent the presence of unnecessary hazardous substances, posing risks for human health and the environment in various stages of the life-cycle of such equipment, including its waste management.
The work undertaken by the European Parliament substantially reinforces the original proposal, and I welcome the majority of the amendments tabled. In particular I support the strengthening of individual financing, as proposed by the Committee on the Environment, and limiting collective systems to those cases where these are necessary for practical reasons. This can help to internalise waste management costs into the product price and give incentives for a better design for re-use and recycling. It is a first step towards fuller integration of environmental considerations into product design and consumption patterns.
We also need to find appropriate solutions for the financing of historical waste put on the market before the entry into force of this directive. One of the options to achieve this may also be the use of a visible fee. This should, however, be done in line with Articles 88 and 89 of the Treaty.
I welcome the principle of increasing the collection target to 6 kgs per capita and per year, though the timetable foreseen needs to be more realistic and take into account the time needed to collect and process data.
I also support the proposal to advance the phase-out date for the substance bans in the RoHS directive to 2006, though this should be done in accordance with the principles set out in Article 95 of the Treaty.
Let me also answer some of the points raised during the debate. I can assure you that we have carefully evaluated all aspects of this proposal, including its costs. For the overall target of 4 kg per capita collected waste, we estimate that the costs will be in the region of EUR 500 to 900 million. We also base our estimates and evaluation on the existing systems, of which there are not many: the Netherlands is the one example from which we can draw conclusions and learn lessons. These figures have been confirmed by practical experience, for example in the Netherlands. If Parliament wants to increase the collection target, this is obviously a political decision, and we agree with that.
When it comes to subsidiarity, we have tried to strike an appropriate balance between harmonising certain elements of the proposal and leaving others to subsidiarity. This is why the way the collection systems operate is left to the Member States. We also think it is not necessary to define at Community level who is to finance the collection point up to the moment the equipment is brought to it. This is why we reject both Amendments Nos 69 and 83."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples