Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-05-Speech-1-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050905.19.1-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank all the speakers for their very constructive observations and to give a number of answers relating to waste from processing bauxite, which was referred to earlier, in order to make alumina: this waste is covered by the directive, which will ensure that repercussions, especially on water, are minimised.
A number of amendments refer specifically to the protection of water. The Commission considers that this issue is already adequately covered by the relevant provisions of the directive supplementing the general provisions of the framework directive on water and by other Community legislation on water which already applies.
Nonetheless, I am able to support Amendments 29, 30, 32 and 33 clarifying the obligations which apply and referring directly to Community legislation on water.
On the other hand, we are unable to agree with Amendment 36 bringing ordinary voids under Community regulations in order to prevent water pollution. I understand Parliament's concern, but I believe that this issue is adequately covered by the framework directive on water.
Similarly, Amendment 42 introduces obligations which will need to be applied during the transitional period granted to existing waste facilities, especially the obligation to comply with the framework directive on water. I believe, for the reasons I explained earlier, that this is unnecessary.
Another source of concern to Parliament was the important legacy from the past in the form of closed and abandoned waste facilities causing pollution. Even though the need for an inventory of these closed sites has now been included in the common position, I have the impression – as I said earlier – that the additional demands imposed by Amendment 40 and the related Amendment 41 can be covered more effectively at national level.
A number of the remaining amendments proposed by Parliament are acceptable: Amendment 10 may help to promote the integration of the environment into other policies. Amendments 17, 18 and 21 explain the content of waste management plans in greater detail. Amendment 27 expressly refers to protected areas. The Commission supports these amendments, which pursue the same objectives as its proposal.
To close, I am happy to announce that the Commission can accept eight amendments in full and a further six amendments in principle or in part. I shall file a complete list of the Commission's positions on the amendments with the Secretariat.
As regards Mr Nicholson's last remark, which differs from what previous speakers said, about old abandoned waste facilities, the Commission and the Council agree in the common position that an inventory should be prepared. Nonetheless, it is better for restoration to be left to the Member States, given that the framework directive on water continues to apply in parallel.
In addition, as far as the facility to grant exemptions for non-inert waste is concerned, this does not concern the main environmental demands, which continue to apply.
We need the new directive, which will safeguard environmentally proper management of mining waste both during the day-to-day operation of waste facilities and in the event of a major accident. I trust that we shall complete the procedure for this proposal as quickly as possible, so that we can safeguard better protection of human health and the environment, as Mr Davies also said, in a way which really will be pragmatic and will respond to the demands of the various interested parties.
Now to the amendments: the amendments relating to the scope of the directive are particularly important. Amendments 2 and 13 delete the permissible exemptions for non-hazardous, non-inert waste.
The Commission is unable to accept them for the reasons I explained in my first intervention. For the same reasons, the Commission is unable to accept Amendment 11 increasing the breadth of the provisions which apply to inert waste, or Amendment 15 deleting the various permissible time periods before a waste storage area qualifies as a 'waste facility'.
The common position has already been worded to reflect the relevant amendments which emerged at first reading and safeguards the necessary proportionality. As a result, Amendment 47 amending the criteria for classifying facilities under category Α cannot be supported.
As regards the financial guarantees, Amendment 37 requiring the Commission to approve the relevant national procedures is unacceptable, because it adds bureaucratic formalities without any added value.
Amendments 7, 38 and 39 are also unacceptable, because the initial text contains a practical method for calculating the amount of money required."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples