Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020902.6.1-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, after a delay of one year the European Commission's proposal to amend the packaging and packaging waste directive is finally before us. I should like to thank Mrs Corbey for her work on this report. I very much welcome the improvements made and hope that they will help in our efforts to reduce waste within the European Union.
It is extremely regrettable, however, that Member State governments are so unwilling to put the environment before big business, in particular in light of the rhetoric on sustainable development we have heard from Johannesburg over the past week.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has tabled several amendments in an effort to further improve the text. I should like to take this opportunity to briefly explain our reasoning behind some of these amendments. Firstly, on the time: we propose a compromise date of 2007 rather than 2008. The Commission's proposal is already one year behind schedule and according to the objectives should be postponed by one year but no more. I also welcome the PPE Group's amendment of a 2006 deadline, which would be better.
Secondly, prevention and reuse of packaging waste should be increased to reduce its environmental impact. Waste prevention must be the first priority of the EU's waste policy and yet too little is done about it. Reuse systems have been shown to be beneficial to the environment, provided a minimum number of reuse cycles is achieved and transport distances are not too great. They are often hampered by the use of too many different bottle types. We have suggested that the Commission should look into the possibility of a uniform bottle type and of taking Community action to facilitate reuse.
Thirdly, we have tried to strengthen the use of recycling as opposed to recovery. According to waste management strategy, recycling is environmentally more beneficial than recovery and, in my opinion, 'recovery' is just another word for incineration – a polluting activity with significant environmental and health impacts. For that reason recycling rather than recovery should be increased. The Commission is saying that Member States '
encourage energy recovery'. '
encourage' – the Commission is forcing Member States to introduce incineration. For my own country, Ireland, this would be just wonderful because that is what it wants to do. It does not want to solve the waste problem, it wants to burn it! Look at the attitude towards recovery. No maximum is set by the Council – which is very interesting – yet it has set a maximum for recycling targets, which is farcical. Why should we prevent more recycling if it is possible?
Fourthly, there should be no maximum targets for recycling as it is environmentally beneficial to promote a shift to materials which are recyclable and more ambitious minimum targets should be achieved. As I have said, the idea of setting a maximum is not acceptable. We have also proposed that exports of packaging waste to non-EU countries should not count towards the achievement of the targets. Exports of packaging wastes are currently unregulated and are in violation of the requirements of Annex 2 of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Waste if they pose a significant threat to the development of environmentally sound recycling infrastructure for packaging waste in the EU and exacerbate the waste problem in the importing country. At least some of the packaging waste currently exported from the EU is processed in operations that are harmful to human health and the environment, or landfilled instead of recycled, which should not be encouraged.
Finally, we propose several amendments covering heavy metals and PVCs. Heavy metals should not be deliberately used in packaging after 2006 and there is no reason to exempt recycled materials from restrictions in relation to heavy metals. According to the Commission's studies on PVC there is no safe disposal method. Current recycling rates of PVC packaging are less than 3% in the EU and all of it is down-cycling, which produces inferior quality with no environmental or economic benefits. We should phase out in line with the European Parliament's resolution on PVC, which called for substitution policies to be introduced.
In 1997, 58 million tonnes of packaging waste was produced. In 1998 that increased to 60 million tonnes, equivalent to 2 kgs per day for a four-person family. Some Member States have only half as much as others – here I am comparing like with like. Finland and Sweden have 100 kgs per person per year; France and Italy, which are very similar countries, have 200 kgs per person per year. There are no figures for countries like Portugal, Ireland and Greece, which want a derogation. I find it completely incomprehensible that my own country, Ireland – a country where the living standards are almost the highest in Europe and which has a booming economy – wants an exemption for its waste problems. Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands reduced by 10% the amount of packaging placed on the market from 1997 to 1998. So it can be achieved, we can achieve a reduction if we put the policies in place to encourage this."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Shall"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples