Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-01-Speech-4-193"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040401.4.4-193"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, waste prevention, reuse and recycling – all these topics have been in the limelight over the past few years. I should like to thank Mr Florenz for his contribution to the debate and for his interesting report.
The European directives have certainly started the ball rolling. We are sorting and collecting our packaging waste, and we make sure our appliances are disposed of effectively. All over Europe, there are now recycling installations, and all over Europe, people are committed to processing the waste we are all producing. That is heavy and demanding work. However, we should do this for the environment and should continue doing this, because the waste mountain is still growing. We should therefore not turn a blind eye to a few obstacles in European waste policy.
First of all, there are large discrepancies among the Member States in the implementation of the directive. This is sometimes attributable to indolence, but often to real problems, such as the lack of potential markets. These differences in implementation also lead to competitive problems. In some countries, it is the governments and taxpayers who collect, and industry contributes little, while in other countries, it is precisely the other way round.
Secondly, there is the environmental benefit, which is not always clear. We think that recycling benefits the environment, but there is a limit. For example, in the case of excessive transport distances, the environmental benefit becomes a burden.
Thirdly, we are still not sufficiently engaging in prevention and reuse. Packaging is important to protect the product, but surely a double layer of plastic around a small piece of bread is taking things slightly too far. Although the Group of the Party of European Socialists is not a keen advocate of expressing prevention targets in weight, because this stimulates the use of lighter materials, such as plastic, we have to note that, in Belgium for example, reuse targets work very well. Germany too offers much inspiration with regard to its deposit system.
As far as the amendments are concerned, we wholeheartedly back all amendments which stimulate reuse and prevention, except for amendments in which prevention is expressed in a percentage, such as in Amendment No 13. As for the definition of waste, I think that we should remind ourselves of the objective that the environmental burden of production and consumption should decrease. For this, the whole chain has to be examined, from raw material down to waste. It does not seem useful to me to have continual discussions about the definitions of waste and prevention. I share Mr Florenz' view that the reduction of waste is an essential element of sustainable waste management. The wording is of secondary importance.
Finally, I should like to comment on the economic and social aspects of waste prevention. Our key topic is the environment, but that also encompasses other aspects, particularly in the economic and social areas. It is precisely these aspects that have been insufficiently addressed, even if the costs have been regularly mentioned recently in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. In the past, we have called for the introduction of a supercommissioner for sustainable development. This may be a good time to repeat this request. The Lisbon objective needs a shot in the arm and that should come from a new Parliament and a new Commissioner."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples