Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

It-Tnejn, 16 ta' Ġunju 2008 - Strasburgu

19. Reviżjoni tad-direttiva ta' qafas dwar l-iskart (dibattitu)

  Die Präsidentin. − Als nächster Punkt folgt die Empfehlung für die zweite Lesung von Caroline Jackson im Namen des Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, Volksgesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit betreffend den Gemeinsamen Standpunkt des Rates im Hinblick auf den Erlass der Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über Abfälle und zur Aufhebung bestimmter Richtlinien (11406/4/2007 – C6-0056/2008 – 2005/0281(COD)) (A6-0162/2008).

  Caroline Jackson, rapporteur. − Madam President, following your ruling that there is no time for points of order, I will continue with my speech on the Waste Framework Directive. It is a little difficult to do so against this background, but I will persevere.

Since certain comments have been made on this point in the British press recently, may I begin by drawing attention once again to my declaration of interests, which I made on the record, and which cites my membership of the Environmental Advisory Board of Shanks plc. That company operates a wide range of waste technologies in Britain and on the continent, and the primary purpose of its Environmental Advisory Board is to provide independent audits of the operation of its plants.

My fellow board members include the chairman of the EU Scientific Advisory Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks and a member of the Green Alliance.

Like many Members, I value the opportunity this kind of experience has given me to learn at close hand about the issues and problems facing this industry and those who work in it.

Turning to the Directive, it has been a long and tortuous road to this second reading and I congratulate those of my colleagues who have accompanied me on it to the very end. The issue is a very important one. Various judgments in the Court of Justice regarding the status of waste destined for treatment in energy-from-waste plants needed to be clarified. New definitions were needed. Two existing directives on hazardous waste and on waste oils were repealed and their provisions transferred to the Waste Framework Directive. However, the committee was not content with those original proposals, and went on to transform the Directive from a technical one into a campaigning one. I congratulate my colleagues on that.

I have to say that the mood in the Council was very bleak, possibly mirroring our economic times. There was much resistance to what we wanted to do and the Council drove a very hard bargain, but we achieved the following.

Firstly, we have added recycling targets to the text. That is a very significant achievement since these were not in the original proposal, and this is the first time that recycling targets for household waste have appeared in EU legislation. It is entirely due to Parliament that they are there.

The new Article 8a requires Member States to take the necessary measures designed to achieve an overall recycling rate of 50% by 2020 for paper, metal, plastic and glass from household and similar waste. There are some Member States, such as Germany, for which this is a conservative target, but there are many for which it is very demanding, and we need to take them into account too.

The same article also requires that by 2020 70% of construction and demolition waste be recycled. The Greens and their supporters are putting it about that the targets are not enforceable. They may even believe that, but they are – extraordinarily – rejecting their own achievement. The Commission has issued a statement to help them, and Mr Dimas will confirm this. The statement says quite clearly that if in 2020 the targets are not achieved, this will be a serious indication for the Commission that a Member State has not taken the necessary measures designed to achieve the targets. On this basis, supported by conclusions in the tri-annual national progress reports, the Commission can take Member States to court for non-compliance with the requirements of the Directive.

It may be important to the Greens not to be happy, because Greens are eternal campaigners, but they should take some account of what the Commission has said in that statement.

Secondly, we have added new provisions on the prevention of waste, in Article 8a. These will mean that the Commission has to report on the evolution of EU waste generation and the scope for waste prevention by 2011, and by 2014 must produce proposals for waste prevention, and decoupling objectives for 2020. It proved impossible to get the Council or the Commission to agree to quantitative waste prevention targets in this Directive, partly because the data necessary for those targets is missing, but Parliament has, through its amendments, created momentum for future policy that may contain waste prevention targets.

The new article therefore represents a significant achievement. It is something for our successors to build on. We cannot do everything in this Directive, but have to hand things on to our successors in the next decade.

Thirdly, we have firmly placed the famous EU waste hierarchy in EU law for the first time. We have been talking about this for years, but if you look at EU law it is not there. However, it will be soon, and we can celebrate a minor victory in getting the Council to agree that the hierarchy shall apply ‘as a priority order’ in waste prevention and management legislation.

Fourthly, we have secured agreement to place better emphasis on hazardous waste management, as several colleagues wanted.

Fifthly, we have also ensured that priority will continue to be given to the regeneration of waste oils – although there was no support for a policy, which I know some colleagues wanted, that would have made regeneration mandatory in all Member States. We secured Council support for the amendment put forward by Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges and colleagues designed to make it easier for SMEs to use the waste list, and we also obtained support for a new article on biowaste.

In conclusion, the Directive specifies the energy efficiency criteria for incineration, with energy recovery to be classed as a recovery operation rather than disposal. That is the best deal available. Anyone who thinks that we could get anything better by going to conciliation would be deceiving themselves. In the famous words of Jack Nicholson, ‘this is as good as it gets’.

  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. − Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αξιότιμα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, θα ήθελα κατ’ αρχάς να ευχαριστήσω και να συγχαρώ την εισηγήτρια κ. Jackson για την εξαιρετική συμβολή της στην αναθεώρηση της οδηγίας πλαίσιο για τα απόβλητα, καθώς και τους σκιώδεις εισηγητές και την Επιτροπή Περιβάλλοντος για τη θετική και εποικοδομητική συμβολή τους.

Με τη συγκεκριμένη οδηγία η Κοινότητα κάνει το πρώτο ουσιαστικό βήμα προς τη δημιουργία μιας κοινωνίας της ανακύκλωσης. Η οδηγία εισάγει μια σύγχρονη αντίληψη στη διαχείριση των αποβλήτων. Αντιμετωπίζει τα απόβλητα ως εκμεταλλεύσιμες πρώτες ύλες. Παρέχει σαφέστερους ορισμούς, απλουστευμένες διατάξεις, αλλά και νέους φιλόδοξους στόχους.

Με την ενσωμάτωση των διατάξεων της οδηγίας για τα επικίνδυνα απόβλητα και της οδηγίας για τα χρησιμοποιημένα ορυκτέλαια, η οδηγία συντελεί στην ευρύτερη προσπάθεια βελτίωσης της νομοθεσίας και απλοποίησης του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου. Το επόμενο βήμα, βεβαίως, θα είναι η επιτυχής εφαρμογή της.

Η προσπάθεια και η επιμονή του Κοινοβουλίου ήταν σημαντικές και απέδωσαν καρπούς. Δεν ήταν εύκολο να πεισθούν τα κράτη μέλη να αποδεχθούν τους νέους στόχους ανακύκλωσης και να συμφωνήσουν στους στόχους πρόληψης. Παρ’ όλα αυτά, ο σκοπός αυτός επιτεύχθηκε πλήρως.

Εκφράστηκαν ορισμένες αμφιβολίες κατά πόσον οι στόχοι θα εφαρμοστούν από τα κράτη μέλη. Θα ήθελα να επισημάνω ότι, με την τρέχουσα διατύπωση των ποσοτικών στόχων, η Επιτροπή έχει τη δυνατότητα και την πολιτική βούληση να παραπέμψει τα κράτη μέλη στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο, εφόσον αυτά δεν έχουν λάβει τα μέτρα που είναι αναγκαία για την επίτευξη των στόχων ανακύκλωσης.

Πολλά άλλα σημαντικά στοιχεία ενσωματώθηκαν από το Κοινοβούλιο στο κείμενο της οδηγίας. Μεταξύ αυτών είναι η ιεράρχηση των αποβλήτων σε 5 κατηγορίες, νέες διατάξεις σχετικά με τη χωριστή συλλογή βιο-αποβλήτων και επικινδύνων αποβλήτων καθώς και πολλές χρήσιμες αποσαφηνίσεις. Τα στοιχεία αυτά εμπλουτίζουν την αρχική πρόταση της Επιτροπής και βελτιώνουν το κείμενο, ώστε να καταστεί ένα φιλόδοξο νομοθετικό εργαλείο για τις μελλοντικές γενιές. Είναι ιδιαίτερα ικανοποιητικό, φυσικά, το γεγονός ότι κατέστη δυνατή η επίτευξη συμφωνίας στη δεύτερη ανάγνωση. Θα ήθελα να επισημάνω για άλλη μια φορά τον εποικοδομητικό ρόλο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου στην εν λόγω διαδικασία.

Η συγκεκριμένη οδηγία διαμορφώνει ένα νέο πλαίσιο διαχείρισης των αποβλήτων και συνιστά ένα στέρεο θεμέλιο για άλλες πρωτοβουλίες κοινοτικής πολιτικής. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή είναι σε θέση να υποστηρίξει τη συμβιβαστική δέσμη προκειμένου να επιτευχθεί συμφωνία σε δεύτερη ανάγνωση.

  John Bowis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, Caroline Jackson referred to a quotation I think from Jack Nicholson. Knowing her golfing prowess, I thought it might have been from Jack Nicklaus, but no doubt they would have had the same sort of quotation: ‘This is about as good as it gets’. That is a great tribute to our rapporteur and I salute her on behalf of our Group.

It is necessary that we support her and take action. It is not as good as we might have envisaged it being at one point. However, we have made enormous progress. Commissioner, it is up to you now to ensure that it is implemented and to bring forward the subsequent provisions on prevention with your target of 2014. I know you will put this process in motion and that is important too.

It is important because we have had a whole raft of waste proposals in my time in this Parliament: we have dealt with vehicles, electrical and electronic equipment, batteries, packaging and so forth. However, waste goes on rising; it rises faster than the growth of our economies. It grows fastest in some areas like municipal waste, and that is why we need to take action.

My own country sets one of the worst examples in terms of waste. The Netherlands we salute as setting the best example. However, we all need to catch up. We all need to have more recycling so as to meet the terms of the hierarchy: we need to meet the recycling targets and prevention targets and so forth. I believe that this is a measure which will at least send us down that road in a better frame of mind than we have shown in the past with our wasteful economy, wasteful society and wasteful policies.

  Guido Sacconi, a nome del gruppo PSE. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io sono aiutato dal fatto che la on. Jackson e poi anche il Commissario Dimas hanno illustrato perfettamente i contenuti principali di questo compromesso, che anch'io sostengo. Quindi mi sarà consentito fare una riflessione eminentemente politica.

Io sono un negoziatore e mi pongo sempre il problema se il compromesso che si è raggiunto è davvero valido o meno. E quindi mi sono riletto i testi a mente fredda, dopo la notte della trattativa. Chissà perché le trattative bisogna sempre che finiscano di notte. Vale meno un accordo fatto alla mattina? Anche su questo vale la pena di riflettere. E sinceramente – lo dico agli amici Verdi e della GUE, ma lo dico anche all'amico Florenz, che ho visto ripresentare un emendamento della commissione ambiente che portava la mia firma e che quindi io non posso non condividere – sinceramente, analizzando i testi, quello del compromesso e quello della commissione ambiente, noi davvero abbiamo ottenuto – sig.ra Jackson a lei va il merito principalissimo – un risultato inimmaginabile.

Lo sappiamo o no che nella proposta della Commissione e poi nella posizione comune non c'era niente sul riciclaggio? Niente, se non un considerando in cui si citava questa società del riciclaggio, non meglio precisata. Non c'era niente! Ora usciamo con dei target precisi; usciamo con una revisione al 2014 che potrà comprendere altri materiali oggi non previsti; usciamo con una certezza giuridica, che ci veniva confermata anche ora dal Commissario Dimas, circa la possibilità di sanzionare gli Stati che non mettano in atto le misure previste per raggiungere questi obiettivi.

Mi pare un fatto di grande importanza. Di grande importanza è anche aver messo finalmente in moto un processo politico e giuridico per obbligare gli Stati a darsi dei veri piani di prevenzione dei rifiuti, così come avere finalmente inserito in una normativa europea, con carattere giuridico vincolante, una gerarchia del trattamento dei rifiuti rispettosa dell'ambiente, tale da fare dei rifiuti non solo un problema ma una risorsa.

In tutta onestà, quindi, e in pieno senso di responsabilità, io credo che non accogliere questo compromesso e andare a un'avventurosa conciliazione non è fare l'interesse dei cittadini europei, ma affidare a una specie di roulette russa il conseguimento e la fissazione di questi obiettivi che invece qui sono chiari e assolutamente incontrovertibili.

  Mojca Drčar Murko, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, with this text we hope to reverse the trend of producing more waste than we recycle. It is the result of several years of debates and taking account of the reality of two major groups of Member States as regards waste management systems: recycling states and landfilling states.

The achieved compromise must be seen in this light. For the first time, prevention and recycling have been given a central role in the Directive. Furthermore, the text includes the necessary dynamics to adapt higher targets as well as targets for new waste streams It is a carefully balanced compromise: achievable and realistic. Amendments: we do not consider that in their entirety they endanger the general agreement.

With regard to by-products – the article in the body of the Directive and the article on end of waste – most critics fear sham recovery. As the issue is not internationally agreed, the danger is real. It must, therefore, be made clear that the Commission will use the guidelines from February 2007 in order to prevent this.

I would much appreciate it if Mr Dimas would give us today an assurance that a substance or object will be shipped as a by-product outside the Community only once the conditions of Article 4(1) are met in the Community.

Similarly for end of waste. When certain waste ceases to be waste, the substance or object resulting from it can be shipped as such outside the Community only once the conditions of Article 5 are met in the Community. It would make it easier for many MEPs to vote for the compromise.

To conclude, I wish to extend many thanks to the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs for fruitful cooperation to the benefit of the citizens of Europe.

  Jill Evans, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I would also like to thank Mrs Jackson. We may have ended up in disagreement about the tax, but I think that there is no doubt that there has been excellent cooperation throughout the discussions. We are not happy today – I wish we were – and I would like to give some of the reasons why we are not happy with the compromise.

We have supported 30 of the compromise amendments and we have tabled others to try and strengthen the compromise in the areas of hazardous waste, end of waste, by-products and separate collection of biowaste. But from the very start, the main issues for us were the adoption of binding targets on waste reduction and recycling and opposition to the reclassification of incineration as energy recovery. The final compromise does not have a legally binding target for waste reduction. A study on waste prevention is no alternative to stabilisation measures; the continuous growth in waste is unsustainable and without this measure it will continue to grow.

Although recycling and reuse targets have been set at 50% and 70% and the Member States are legally obliged to put measures in place to achieve these targets, the targets themselves are not binding. I am grateful for the explanation that we have had from Mr Dimas, but why was there such a debate over the wording of this? The reason was to avoid making those targets binding.

Manufacturing and industrial waste, which have a huge potential for reuse and recycling, have been left out altogether. Incineration cannot be viewed as a waste management option on a par with recycling and reuse; this will just attract further investment into incinerators and directly undermine the waste hierarchy. If the weak compromise is adopted, we will have missed the opportunity to ensure real EU action and leadership on waste policy when we so desperately need it.

  Bairbre de Brún, thar ceann an Ghrúpa GUE/NGL. – A Uachtaráin, gabhaim buíochas le Bean Jackson as an obair a rinne sí. Rinneamar obair mhaith le chéile ag feabhsú chéad togra an Choimisiúin, ach ní aontaímid ar gach rud.

Beidh imní ar chuid mhór daoine fud fad an Aontais faoin mholadh loisceoirí a ‘athbhrandáil’ mar chineál téarnaimh má bhaineann siad critéir ar leith éifeachtachta amach. Táimid in aghaidh ‘athbhrandáil’ loiscthe go fóill agus chuireamar síos leasú chun seo a scriosadh.

Ó thaobh athchúrsála de, leagann an margadh molta is déanaí spriocanna amach a d’fhéadfadh a bheith deacair le cur i bhfeidhm de dheasca neamhchruinneas foclaíochta a mhaíonn: “déanfaidh na Ballstáit bearta riachtanacha deartha chun spriocanna athchúrsála a bhaint amach.”

Éilíonn reachtaíocht mhaith go mbeimis níos beaichte lenár bhfoclaíocht ar spriocanna agus nach bhfágaimid léirmhíniú faoi chúram Chúirt Bhreithiúnais na hEorpa. B’fhearr linn foclaíocht an choiste a chosaint agus a choinneáil, mar sin de.

Laghdaíodh moltaí ar dhramhaíl a chosc go dtí an pointe nach mbeidh siad ábalta ionchur substainteach go leor a dhéanamh nó nach mbeidh siad in ann cuidiú le Ballstáit chun dramhaíl seo acu a chobhsú nó a laghdú. Ciallaíonn laige na tagartha do spriocanna coisc nach bhfuil tionscnamh coisc comhchuibhithe cumhdaithe le táscairí i reachtaíocht go fóill.

Mar sin de, is féidir linn cuid den obair a rinneamar le chéile a chomhshíniú. Ach maidir le codanna eile, sílimid go gcaithfidh muid leasuithe a chur síos. Ba mhaith liom, uair amháin eile, mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le Bean Jackson as an dóigh oscailte agus cuimisitheach a ndeachaigh sí i dteagmháil leis na scáthrapóirtéirí.

(Bualadh bos)

  Johannes Blokland, namens de IND/DEM-Fractie. – mevrouw de Voorzitter, de Milieucommissie heeft een zeer goed verslag gepresenteerd als aanbeveling voor de tweede lezing. Ik denk hierbij vooral aan de prominente plaats voor de afvalhiërarchie, het schrappen van de categorie bijproducten, het prudent omgaan met het einde-afvalconcept, de beschermende regels inzake gevaarlijk afval en de doelstellingen voor preventie, hergebruik en recycling.

Het enige negatieve in het verslag van de Commissie milieu was het amendement om afvalverbranding te gaan stimuleren door het aan te merken als nuttige toepassing áls er voldoende energie wordt teruggewonnen.

In het onderhandelingsresultaat dat na twee maanden bereikt is, is niet zo veel meer overgebleven van de aanbeveling van de Commissie milieu en dat lag niet aan de rapporteur, maar met name aan de starre positie van de Raad.

Het artikel over bijproducten is niet aangepast en lidstaten kunnen op eigen houtje bepalen wanneer afval geen afval meer is, met alle concurrentieverstoring vandien. Bovendien zijn er geen preventiedoelstellingen vastgesteld en zijn de doelstellingen voor hergebruik en recycling behoorlijk afgezwakt. Om deze reden heb ik mijn steun niet gegeven aan het compromispakket. Ik hoop echter dat we alsnog de betere elementen van de Commissie milieu aannemen bij de stemming van morgen en dan doel ik met name op de amendementen van de GUE/NGL-Fractie en de Groenen. Het milieu is het waard om hiervoor nog een bemiddelingsprocedure te doorlopen waarbij we de Raad wél zo ver krijgen om de noodzakelijke verbeteringen door te voeren. Als we dit als Parlement overtuigend doen, moet het onder leiding van collega Jackson mogelijk zijn om er meer uit te halen dan nu het geval is. Ik wil nogmaals collega Jackson en de andere schaduwrapporteurs bedanken voor de goede samenwerking en ik hoop dat we morgen een goed resultaat boeken bij de stemming.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, apprezzo e sostengo tutti gli emendamenti che mirano all'introduzione di obiettivi indispensabili alla prevenzione ai fini del miglior riciclaggio. E ovviamente condivido anche l'insistenza su una precisa gerarchia dei rifiuti e sulla sua articolazione. Certamente è anche indispensabile procedere su dati statisticamente certi e comparabili per poter ragionare tanto in termini di prevenzione quanto di riciclaggio dei reflui industriali.

Cari colleghi, ritengo che proprio noi in Parlamento dobbiamo sostenere decisamente che sia applicato come regola generale il principio della gerarchia, piuttosto di quanto richiesto dal Consiglio, che preferirebbe invece il principio guida. La direttiva deve in fondo chiarire quali criteri si possano adottare per eventuali deroghe, che devono comunque, a mio giudizio, alla bisogna essere inquadrate in modo ordinato e distinto, senza che vi siano incertezze su cosa significhi recupero e ciò che significa smaltimento dei rifiuti.

Concordo con la relatrice che gli impianti di recupero energetico svolgono una funzione importante nel trattamento dei rifiuti residui e che oggi, vista la dipendenza che ha l'Unione europea dall'energia d'importazione insicura da tante altre parti del mondo, ci pone di fronte ad una scelta importante anche in materia. Concludo dicendo che apprezzo anche le modifiche relative alla rigenerazione degli olii esausti, che in una prima fase erano state invece tolte.

  Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Caroline Jackson! Ich bin unzufrieden mit dem Kompromiss, aber ich bin nicht unzufrieden, weil die Kollegin Jackson falsch verhandelt hat, sondern ich bin ausnahmsweise, lieber Stavros Dimas, mit der Kommission unzufrieden.

Bei Flugzeugen, Industrie und Autos ist die Kommission außergewöhnlich streng und feilscht bei der CO2-Reduzierung um jedes Gramm, was auch richtig ist. Bei der Abfallpolitik aber spielt CO2 überhaupt keine Rolle. 100 Millionen Tonnen können wir nachweislich an CO2 einsparen. Das ist eine riesengroße Chance, die in diesem Dokument vertan wurde.

Das zweite, was ich bedaure, ist, dass wir so eine Art Betonunternehmen geworden sind. Wir betonieren die Ungleichheiten in Europa ein, nehmen keine Harmonisierung ins Visier. Wir beschreiben zwar Ziele, aber diese Ziele sind unverbindlich. In den nächsten 20 Jahren werden wir in Europa keine echten harmonisierten Ziele bekommen. Das ist das, was mich an diesem Bericht stört. 20 Jahre – das ist fast eine halbe Generation. Da hätten wir viel innovativer sein sollen, und das wäre auch möglich gewesen.

Ich glaube, Herr Kommissar, da gibt es nur ein großes Problem: Das ist der Artikel 14. Ich würde mich sehr freuen, wenn Sie dazu noch etwas sagen würden. Das mag in einem föderalen Staat sehr kompliziert sein. Es geht um die Frage der gemischten oder eben nicht gemischten Abfälle und wie sie unter dem Prinzip der Autarchie behandelt werden. Ich möchte Sie sehr herzlich bitten, zu dieser Frage in Ihren Erläuterungen noch einmal Stellung zu nehmen.

Natürlich gibt es im Moment den einen oder anderen, der sagt: wir werden da eine große Mehrheit bekommen. Aber wenn diese Fragen nicht geklärt sind, werden sich einige große Länder sehr wohl schwer tun. Bitte denken Sie daran, wir haben ja nicht nur die morgige Lesung, wir haben auch noch eine dritte Lesung – und 64 Änderungsanträge in einem Vermittlungsverfahren sind relativ viel.

Also wenn Sie die Chance wahrnehmen, Herr Kommissar, zu diesen offenen Fragen das eine oder andere zu erklären, dann könnte ich mir vorstellen, dass wir am Ende zu einem guten Ergebnis kommen.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – Madam President, in Europe we are currently recycling only 27% of our waste and almost half of our waste ends up in landfills. This shows that we have to fundamentally change our waste management. Most importantly we should encourage waste prevention, strengthen reuse and recycling and minimise the amount of landfill waste. Therefore I welcome the fact that the waste hierarchy remained in the new compromise text after some debate.

As regards prevention – the main aim of the legislation – I miss the waste stabilisation targets in the latest text, but we had already adopted them in the first reading. In the old Member States one person generates almost twice as much household waste – 570 kg per year – as a person in the new Member States – 300 to 350 kg per year. So the rich nations should start to decrease waste production first.

The amount of generated waste is increasing on a European scale. Therefore prevention programmes, as proposed in the compromise, are not enough: we must set binding targets to halt the growing waste generation. That is why I consider supporting Amendment 48 which reintroduces the waste stabilisation target. I welcome the mandatory waste reuse and recycling targets, but I am afraid that the new text, which says that Member States ‘shall take the necessary measures’ to achieve the targets is not enough. We need concrete, enforceable and binding targets, both for household and industrial waste. Therefore I propose to support Amendment 82, to ensure the enforcement of the recycling targets.

Having made these comments, I welcome the report and the work of Mrs Jackson, my friend Guido Sacconi and others.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Madam President, this agreement is as good as it gets, the rapporteur says, and I pay credit to what she has achieved. There are gains to be made at 3 o’clock in the morning during a conciliation session that cannot be achieved at other times during the negotiating process.

We all recognise that the size of our waste mountain needs to be reduced. One British supermarket has recently announced that by 2012 it intends to reduce the use of packaging by 25% and its use of carrier bags by 33%. It wants to ensure that waste food is converted to energy by anaerobic digestion. It wants to restrict the number of materials used in packaging to just four which are easy to recycle or compost and it wants to print simple symbols on all packaging to make it easy for customers to recycle or compost their waste.

Now all this is a matter of political will. Reducing waste is a matter of political will and that will can be strengthened by European Union law.

I suspect that we could have got the Council to at least agree to bring forward the date by which it will publish proposals for waste reduction from 2014 to a few years earlier. Parliament has done well. It could, perhaps, have done better.

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Vorschlag ist eine Enttäuschung. Er ist geradezu ein Versagen vor der Notwendigkeit, mehr für den Klimaschutz und die Ressourcenschonung zu tun. Wir wissen, dass die Europäische Umweltagentur einen Anstieg der Abfallmengen bis 2020 um 50 % prognostiziert hat. Von daher ist es ein ganz klares Einknicken und Versagen, wenn es nicht gelungen ist, verbindliche Stabilisierungswerte festzuschreiben oder verbindliche Recyclingziele, die ja dem Druck der Mitgliedstaaten geopfert worden sind. Das ist eine ganz klare Verwässerung und ein Einknicken vor dem, was notwendig gewesen wäre.

Es ist auch enttäuschend, dass die Müllverbrennung immer mehr zur ultima ratio wird und die Müllvermeidung in den Hintergrund gedrängt wird. Daher hätten wir genau diese Recyclingquoten und die Müllstabilisierung gebraucht, um diese Schieflage wieder zurechtzurücken. Ich hoffe, dass wir durch die Annahme von Änderungsanträgen noch etwas an diesem Entwurf verbessern können und wirklich das tun, was notwendig wäre: nämlich eine ambitionierte Abfallpolitik gestalten, wie wir sie in der Europäischen Union bräuchten.

  Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi dispiace ma devo esprimere delle critiche per alcuni compromessi raggiunti che rischiano di tradire, almeno in parte, ciò che il Parlamento aveva votato molto bene in prima lettura.

E mi dispiace perché questi peggioramenti sono stati voluti per forza dal Consiglio ed essi sono sbagliati e pericolosi. Lo voglio dire dal mio punto di osservazione, visto che io vivo in Italia. L'Italia è purtroppo in questo caso il cattivo esempio di una gestione dei rifiuti che non ha rispettato né lo spirito né la lettera della legislazione europea, che in modo consolidato da tempo propone una gerarchia virtuosa che va dalla riduzione al riciclaggio.

Questa gerarchia va rafforzata con obiettivi quantificati e certi – appunto di riduzione e di riciclaggio – anche per i rifiuti industriali, e non indebolita, come in parte accade, lasciando spazio a politiche di smaltimento che ne tradiscono la filosofia. L'Italia, ad esempio, ha incentivato in questi anni con miliardi di euro la pratica di incenerire i rifiuti, con risultati che sono di fronte agli occhi di tutti e non sono certo positivi.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, across Europe, every Member State is struggling with runaway energy prices. Therefore seeing waste as potentially important fuel is, I believe, both sensible and necessary. It is surely a win-win situation – both dealing with our massive stockpiles of waste and providing an alternative energy supply source, particularly as we face an energy crisis and increasing dependence upon insecure foreign supplies of oil.

I therefore do not therefore understand the reticence of some in facing up to the obvious advantage of promoting energy from waste. I fear some colleagues feel so precious about their recycling and anti-incineration dogmas that they would sacrifice the opportunity of heat and power from waste. In that, I have to say, I believe they are profoundly mistaken.

On a related note, could I say that I very strongly favour maximising the definition of ‘recovery’ under the Directive, making it indisputably clear that energy from waste represents recovery, not disposal, of waste. We should particularly apply that to our agricultural sector, where there is much opportunity in that regard.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE). – Madame la Présidente, tout d'abord vous me permettrez de féliciter chaleureusement notre rapporteure, Caroline Jackson, pour le travail remarquable qu'elle a fait et qui reflète la qualité de son expertise sur cette délicate question de la gestion des déchets. Je la félicite également pour la qualité de son écoute, qui a été permanente tout au long des négociations et qui a permis d'obtenir ce compromis difficile avec le Conseil et la Commission.

On a une nouvelle directive qui vise à clarifier un certain nombre de points. On peut se féliciter de la hiérarchie du mode de gestion des déchets et des objectifs de recyclage ambitieux fixés pour les États membres – 50% pour les déchets ménagers d'ici 2020 –; la prévention, la réutilisation, le recyclage, la valorisation et enfin l'élimination doivent être la voie à suivre pour le traitement des déchets et cette hiérarchie doit être un principe directeur. Il est également important que les incinérateurs soient soumis à des critères d'efficacité énergétique comme le prévoit le texte, à condition, bien sûr, que l'incinération soit vraiment la solution utilisée dans la mesure où on ne peut pas faire autrement.

Le texte encadrant aussi étroitement le contrôle des déchets dangereux et renforçant leur traçabilité, tout ceci me paraît dès lors très positif.

Bien sûr, il s'agit d'un compromis et nous aurions souhaité aller beaucoup plus loin sur certains points, comme l'ajout de critères environnementaux dans la définition de la valorisation, le renforcement des conditions de sortie du statut de déchet ou bien encore la question des coproduits, dont la définition pose problème. Néanmoins, il faut absolument que nous soutenions ce compromis, parce que nous savons très bien qu'il a été difficile à obtenir et qu'en voulant aller jusqu'à une conciliation, nous prenons le risque d'échouer et de prendre énormément de retard. Il faut le savoir: notre politique européenne des déchets ayant été un échec jusqu'à présent, il est bien préférable de s'entendre sur une solution qui paraisse raisonnable et il faut que la Commission européenne soit suffisamment vigilante pour veiller à la bonne application de cette directive. Dans quelques années, nous verrons pour aller plus loin.

  Anne Ferreira (PSE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, pour ma part, je ne suis pas satisfaite de ce texte de compromis, ni sur la forme, ni sur le fond.

Sur la forme, j'estime que travailler pendant deux ans à l'élaboration d'un texte pour que les ultimes décisions - qui ne sont pas que des ajustements - soient établies en catimini bien en-deçà de ce qui avait été adopté en commission de l'environnement et n'arrivent sur la table des députés que quelques heures avant le vote, cela ne nous permet pas de travailler dans de bonnes conditions.

Sur le fond, ce texte de compromis est un texte de renoncement qui abandonne une définition claire de la valorisation, qui abandonne la volonté de stabiliser le volume de déchets, qui abandonne des objectifs de recyclage ambitieux et qui témoigne malheureusement de l'incapacité de la Commission et du Conseil à traduire en actes les grandes déclarations ambitieuses qui sont faites sur la scène européenne et sur la scène internationale.

Non, je ne suis pas satisfaite, et je suis même inquiète de notre incapacité politique à véritablement agir sur notre environnement ainsi que pour notre santé et son amélioration, et c'est aussi la raison pour laquelle j'ai voté non.

  Anne Laperrouze (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, en préambule de mon intervention, je tiens à saluer le travail effectué par notre rapporteur, Mme Jackson, et par Mme Drčar Murko, rapporteur pour notre groupe ALDE.

La question des déchets dangereux me paraît être une question essentielle des problématiques de traçabilité, de non-dilution, d'archivage homogène des informations relatives aux mouvements de déchets sur une période longue, c'est-à-dire cinq ans pour tous les intervenants de la filière, alors que toutes ces questions font l'objet d'un traitement assez léger. C'est plus que regrettable au regard de la santé et de l'environnement.

En ce qui concerne les coproduits je ne peux que faire part de ma déception. Je ne suis pas contre le concept de coproduit; au contraire, je reconnais son importance mais j'estime que la définition que l'on trouve dans la position commune du Conseil ne donne pas assez de garanties et qu'in fine, elle risque de détruire le concept en lui-même au travers d'abus possibles.

Enfin, d'autres questions, telles que le statut de fin de vie du déchet ou la valorisation me semblent avoir été sacrifiées au nom d'un accord en seconde lecture.

  Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, Kollegin Jackson! Wir werden fraktionsübergreifend einen Änderungsantrag einbringen, der schon in der ersten Lesung die Mehrheit des hohen Hauses gefunden hat. Es geht um folgendes Problem: Es kommt in der EU in vielen Ländern immer wieder zu unkontrollierter Verfütterung bzw. zu einem wilden Deponieren von unbehandelten, nicht sterilisierten Speiseresten. Dieses Verhalten bringt immer wieder die Gefahr von Krankheiten, wie z.B. Maul- und Klauenseuche, mit sich. Es ist deshalb notwendig, dass diese Speisereste durch geeignete Verfahren von zugelassenen Unternehmen sterilisiert und unschädlich beseitigt werden. Eine Verwendung in Futtermitteln für Schweine darf von den Mitgliedstaaten nur genehmigt werden, wenn eine Sterilisierung von 133 °C bei einem Druck von 3 bar während einer Dauer von 20 Minuten vorgenommen wurde und alle weiteren Bestimmungen der Verordnung 1774/2002 lückenlos eingehalten werden. Ich bin überzeugt, dass der Rat bei Annahme des Änderungsantrags durch das Parlament diese Regelung mit in den Kompromiss übernehmen wird.

  Umberto Guidoni (GUE/NGL). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il compromesso raggiunto è un passo indietro rispetto al testo approvato in commissione ambiente.

Il testo originale stabiliva che dal 2012 la produzione dei rifiuti dovesse ridursi ai livelli del 2009, instaurando una vera politica di prevenzione con misure scadenzate nel tempo. Nel compromesso tale obiettivo è stato cancellato lasciando tutto nel vago. ENVI aveva fissato obiettivi minimi per il riciclaggio dei rifiuti domestici e industriali da raggiungere in tempi certi anche se lontani. Anche questi obiettivi sono stati annacquati, limitandoli solo ad alcune tipologie di materiale ed escludendo i rifiuti industriali.

Altra nota negativa viene dalla promozione degli inceneritori oltre una certa efficienza da impianti di smaltimento ad impianti di recupero. Questa direttiva sembra piegarsi alle logiche di potenti lobby. Eppure l'esito del referendum in Irlanda ha mostrato che o si è dalla parte dei cittadini e delle loro preoccupazioni, oppure si rischia il rigetto dell'idea di Europa e la paralisi del processo di integrazione.

Il Parlamento deve dare ascolto alle migliaia di e-mail dei cittadini europei che chiedono maggiori impegni ed obiettivi vincolanti, altrimenti rischiamo di perdere una nuova grande occasione per rafforzare la credibilità delle istituzioni europee.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – Köszönöm szépen, elnök asszony! A kompromisszumos csomagot üdvözlöm, egyben hangsúlyozom, hogy ez a kompromisszum igen törékeny. Ezért különösen fontos az egyes tagállamok felelősségteljes magatartása, nem pedig a jogszabályban maradt esetleges kiskapuk keresgetése. Jelenleg Magyarországon a kommunális hulladék szelektív gyűjtésének aránya 2%. Úgy vélem, ehhez nincs mit hozzáfűzni, csak remélni, hogy az irányelv hatására végre sikerül erről az alacsony szintről elmozdulni. Az elmúlt években Európa keleti felén a hulladékgazdálkodási beruházások száma megnövekedett, főleg az ISPA és a Kohéziós Alapokból kapott támogatásoknak köszönhetőleg. Főleg lerakók épültek és több településen szelektív gyűjtési programok indultak, néhol pedig a szerves hulladék külön gyűjtését célzó intézkedéseket hoztak. Valódi hulladék-megelőzési intézkedések, beruházások viszont egyáltalán nem történtek, és a mai napig sincs érzékelhető feldolgozói háttéripar sem. Ezért nagyon fontos, hogy az Unió milyen irányokat jelöl ki, többek között Magyarország számára is. A statisztikák szerint lényegében bármelyik település 50%-os hulladékcsökkentést tud elérni, mihelyst bevezeti a száraz újrahasznosító, és a szerves hulladékok házhoz menő szelektív gyűjtését. Az új kötelezettségek előírásakor azonban nem hagyhatjuk figyelmen kívül azok végrehajthatóságát és költségeit sem. Megépíthetők-e például a pótlólagos beruházások az ISPA projektek területén? Módosíthatók-e az eredeti szerződések? Mert ha nem, akkor hiába van igény a szelektív gyűjtés bővítésére, hiába van jogszabály a lerakásra kerülő hulladék mennyiségének csökkentésére, a húsz évre kötött szerződések értelmében a begyűjtött hulladékot a megépített hulladéklerakókba kell lerakni. Ezen irányelv elfogadása mellett nem halogathatjuk tehát a módosítási lehetőségek kimunkálását a megkötött szerződésekre is. Gratulálok az előadónak a kiváló munkához! Köszönöm szépen.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich glaube, wir können der Berichterstatterin gratulieren. Sie hat doch ein ordentliches Ergebnis mit dem Rat erzielen können. Insbesondere möchte ich hervorheben, dass die abweichende Hierarchie umgesetzt werden konnte.

Es gibt aber auch negative Punkte, die eigentlich unverständlich sind und vom Rat in dieses Dokument eingebracht wurden. Dies betrifft einerseits die tierischen Nebenprodukte. Bisher hatten wir im Ausschuss festgelegt, dass tierische Nebenprodukte aus dieser Abfallrahmenrichtlinie herausfallen. Was der Rat jetzt gemacht hat, ist eine solche bürokratische Hürde, die einen Landwirt eigentlich auf die Barrikade treiben müsste. Da wird festgelegt, dass Gülle, die zu Biogas verarbeitet wird, plötzlich Abfall ist. Wissen Sie, was das bedeutet? Das bedeutet, dass der Landwirt eine Genehmigung zur Verarbeitung von Abfall einholen muss, dass er genau darlegen muss, um welche Menge und um welche Art von Abfall es geht, und er muss den Standort angeben.

In der Richtlinie für Nebenprodukte ist es genau festgelegt, dass es für Gülle Ausnahmen gibt. Wenn der Bauer die Gülle also auf den Acker bringt, dann hat er es einfacher als wenn er sie zu Biogas verarbeitet. Eine Methode, wie wir eigentlich fördern wollen, belegen wir jetzt mit bürokratischen Hürden.

Der zweite Punkt ist die Frage des Altöls. Bisher war in der Altöl-Rahmenrichtlinie – die ja jetzt aufgehoben wird – festgelegt, dass Altöl verarbeitet wird und wieder gewonnen werden soll. Es sind große Mengen, die da umgesetzt werden. Natürlich stand schon fest, dass dies nicht gelten soll, wenn es wirtschaftlich nicht sinnvoll und technisch nicht umsetzbar ist. Jetzt wurde festgelegt, dass die Mitgliedstaaten entscheiden sollen. Ja, sind wir nun eine Europäische Union oder sind wir wieder Mitgliedstaaten? Wir brechen also hier ganz klar den Markt wieder auf. Ich halte das für sehr bedenklich. Nun zur Frage der Autarchieausweitung. Die Kommunen bestimmen nun, wer, wann, was entsorgt. Natürlich war der Druck der Kommunen, die die Verbrennungsanlagen nicht auslasten sehr stark. Aber das ist der falsche Weg. So kann es nicht gehen, und diese Ausweitung bremst die Marktwirtschaft in dieser Frage völlig aus.

  Frieda Brepoels (PPE-DE). – mevrouw de Voorzitter, ik denk dat het duidelijk is dat het voorliggende compromis een substantiële stap vooruit is voor de Europese milieuwetgeving. Maar toch ben ik niet onverdeeld gelukkig met het compromis. Waarom niet? Mijn regio Vlaanderen staat samen met bijvoorbeeld Nederland aan de top inzake afvalbeleid en is kampioen in sorteren en recycleren en dus vinden wij de voorziene recyclage en preventiedoelstellingen dan ook absoluut onvoldoende. Het geeft ons eigenlijk geen enkele aanmoediging om het nog beter te doen in de toekomst.

Wij zijn ook niet onverdeeld gelukkig met de mogelijkheid om huisvuilverbrandingsovens als nuttige toepassing te beschouwen op basis van die energie-efficiëntieformule die in de praktijk volgens ons tot heel veel onduidelijkheid kan leiden. Maar toch ben ik ervan overtuigd dat de globale eindbalans als zeer positief moet worden beschouwd en wil ik mevrouw Jackson dan ook van harte feliciteren voor haar enorme inzet; wij zullen het compromis steunen.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – Kedves elnök asszony! A hulladék-irányelv jelen formájában sajnos veszélyezteti a biogáz-felhasználás elterjedését. Teljesen egyetértek Schnellhardt kollégámmal az Európai Néppártból, hogy a jelen irányelv nem alkalmas a biogáz-termelésre, sem a hígtrágya, sem a kommunális hulladék felhasználása tekintetében. A hulladék-irányelv jelen formájában sajnos veszélyezteti a biogáz-felhasználás elterjedését, és ezért nagyon kérdéses a Jackson-jelentés. A hulladék-irányelv keretében a biogáz-termelésben használatos állati trágya szemétként való definíciója nem egyértelmű. Amennyiben arra az irányelv hatálya kiterjedne, az ellehetetlenítené az állati trágyán alapuló biogáz-termelést, amely pedig komoly energetikai, környezeti és klímavédelmi előnyökkel járnak. Ezt a jogkoherencia-zavart mihamarabb kell tisztáznunk, ezért kell elfogadni a Bizottság állásfoglalását az irányelvről, a biogázzal kapcsolatosan.

  Adam Gierek (PSE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Gratulacje dla sprawozdawczyni za realistyczne ujęcie narastającego problemu odpadów. Podstawowym założeniem proponowanych regulacji jest zapobieganie powstawaniu odpadów oraz recykling materiałowy. Recykling cieplny jest wprawdzie łatwiejszy, ale nie powinien wypierać trudniejszego recyklingu materiałowego.

Trzeba więc stworzyć warunki dla recyklingu materiałowego, precyzyjniejsze zalecenia prawne określające, kiedy np. złom metali to już nie odpad, a surowiec. Potrzebne są lepsze i tańsze technologie recyklingu materiałowego. Wyroby powinny być tak zaprojektowane, by recykling był ułatwiony. Potrzebna jest selektywna zbiórka oraz jej urynkowienie, tak by zarówno gospodarstwa domowe, jak i potencjalni użytkownicy materiałów wtórnych mogli z tego korzystać.

Bez tego grożą nam powtórki z obecnej sytuacji w Neapolu, kiedy to niestety spalanie śmieci może się okazać jedyną opcją.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank all the speakers in this debate for their positive contributions.

On the basis of the agreed text, Member States will now have to take a number of measures in order to improve their waste management. The Directive lays down clear definitions and waste management principles, which I trust will resolve the existing interpretation problems, reduce the number of court cases and set a sound legal basis for the functioning of the waste treatment sector.

A number of key elements have been included in the overall compromise package that is now proposed. The most important are these.

Firstly, the environmental objective of the Directive is now clear and ambitious. The level of environmental protection has not only been maintained but also strengthened in several cases, such as hazardous waste.

The co-legislators have agreed on a number of cornerstone definitions, including definitions of waste, prevention, recycling and recovery. These definitions are clear and understandable. In addition, the Directive successfully incorporates the provisions of two other directives to make the legislation more accessible while maintaining the high standards of environmental protection.

A distinction between recovery and disposal has been made clear, with a possibility for the Commission to further delineate this distinction should there be such a need.

A clear five-step ‘waste hierarchy’ has been set up which promotes waste prevention and allows for disposal of residual waste only as the last resort. At the same time, it allows for the necessary scope of flexibility justified by sound life-cycle considerations.

I would like to recall the importance given by Parliament during the negotiations to strengthening the upper levels of the ‘waste hierarchy’ by introducing the recycling targets. If these targets are not met in 2020, the Commission can take Member States to court for non-compliance with the requirements of the Directive. In addition, the current formulation introduces a more regular and thorough process of monitoring the measures taken by Member States to attain the required targets in advance of the 2020 deadline, instead of a simple check of the actual compliance levels in 2020 when waste management systems are already in place. Such an early enforcement process can help to avoid unpleasant surprises in 2020.

Last but not least, the Directive introduces a completely new dimension on waste prevention which the Commission is keen to pursue immediately after its adoption and transposition. The Member States will now have to establish their national waste management plans and networks which need to reflect the principles and new obligations set out in the revised Directive.

Article 14 of the Waste Framework Directive does not prescribe whether private or public authorities should participate in the setting-up and in the operation of such networks, nor does it affect in any possible way the ownership – public or private – of waste-management operations and infrastructures. The division of responsibilities between the public and private sectors is an internal matter that can only be decided by the Member States. If an adequate network of disposal and recovery operations is already in place – be it private, public or mixed – there is no need for additional measures to set it up.

Regarding the concerns relating to the lack of a recycling target for manufacturing and industrial waste, my services will look into the possibility of setting such a target as the first priority within the context of the 2014 review, which is foreseen in Article 8a (point 4).

Regarding the issue of feeding animals with animal by-products such as catering waste, this is regulated by the Animal By-Products Regulation, which is currently under review. It should be addressed in that regulation as the Waste Framework Directive is not the right place to regulate the use of catering waste.

Concerning the question of whether by-product requirements and end-of-waste criteria must be fulfilled in the European Union before shipment to third countries, the Commission confirms that this is the case.

Regarding the question of whether manure should be excluded from the scope of the Waste Framework Directive, manure is not considered waste when it is used as a fertiliser. However, it is considered waste when it is destined for further treatment or disposal operations, for instance incineration, production of biogas or compost and landfilling. Excluding manure from the scope of waste legislation would create a serious gap in environmental protection, since there would be no legal means to control issues such as emissions to air and water, landfilling requirements, noise, odour etc.

Finally, the European Union should promote the production of biogas and the composting of waste. However, biogas and composting plants are not environmentally neutral. They also emit to the air and water and can be a source of nuisance, for instance in terms of odours or noise. Excluding manure destined for biogas production or composting plants from the scope of the Waste Framework Directive would result in excluding such plants from the scope of the IPPC Directive.

To conclude, I should like once again to congratulate and thank Mrs Jackson for her excellent work. The Commission is very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations and can accept the proposed compromise amendments in full.

  Caroline Jackson, rapporteur. − Madam President, just briefly I would like to thank all those colleagues who took part in the debate. There is only one colleague that I want to respond to, and that is Mr Davies – hereinafter known as ‘Chris ‘Newsnight’ Davies’, for the programme that he likes appearing on – who said that I gave in too easily in the Council. I hope that my colleagues will reinforce me when I say that I did not give in too easily and that I have never given in easily on anything. As Mrs Laperrouze will attest on the water issue, the Council is getting increasingly difficult to negotiate with. As the recession bites, it realises that this legislation is going to cost money and it is reluctant to accept Parliament’s amendments.

We have a choice tomorrow morning. We can agree to the package of amendments before us and I hope very much that is what will happen. We can vote through some major amendments, for example on by-products, which will mean that the package falls and we all go into conciliation. Won’t that be fun! Or we can agree perhaps to some minor amendment, or to an amendment which is characterised by its movers as minor, such as Amendment 88 on which I await the Commission’s opinion, perhaps overnight.

I think it is very doubtful indeed as to whether the Council will accept any amendments, however minor, so I am in favour of the package itself, unamended. After all, the package must mean something, otherwise why did the Council fight so strongly over it? It is not a meaningless package as the Greens are trying to make out; it is a package with teeth.

I would like in conclusion to thank the shadows – Caroline Jackson and the Shadows, it sounds like a 1960s band – for their cooperation, without necessarily wishing to see them again and again and again in conciliation. I think we ought to try to put this issue to bed tomorrow morning.

  Die Präsidentin. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Dienstag, dem 17. Juni, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 142)

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE), schriftlich. – Mit der neuen Abfallrahmenrichtlinie hat das Parlament nun die Festlegung hoher und verpflichtender Recyclingquoten durchgesetzt. Dies war auch dringend notwendig und ich sehe jetzt mit Zuversicht in die Zukunft, in der Mülltrennung und Recycling europaweit immer mehr praktiziert werden wird. 50 Prozent Recyclinganteil bei Hausmüll und 70 Prozent bei Bau- und Abbruchabfällen bis 2020 halte ich für ein sehr gutes Ziel, das den Weg in eine funktionierende, umwelt- und klimagerechte Abfallbewirtschaftung in ganz Europa ebnet. Gerade weil die Österreicher jetzt schon vorbildlich Müll trennen und recyceln, freut es mich sehr, dass sich nun auch alle anderen Mitgliedstaaten daran beteiligen werden und wir dem effizienten Umweltschutz wieder einen Schritt näher kommen. Denn wir sollten nicht vergessen, dass Abfälle ebenso Rohstoffe sind, deren effizientere Nutzung auch im Kampf gegen den Klimawandel helfen kann.

Nun heißt es, den konkreten Vorschlag der Kommission, wie wir vermeiden können, dass Wirtschaftswachstum gleichzeitig Abfallwachstum bedeutet, abzuwarten.