Úplné znění 
Postup : 2021/0340(COD)
Průběh na zasedání
Stadia projednávání dokumentu : A9-0092/2022

Předložené texty :


Rozpravy :

PV 02/05/2022 - 14
CRE 02/05/2022 - 14

Hlasování :

PV 03/05/2022 - 8.3
CRE 03/05/2022 - 8.3
Vysvětlení hlasování
PV 04/10/2022 - 6.12
CRE 04/10/2022 - 6.12

Přijaté texty :


Doslovný záznam ze zasedání
XML 40k
Pondělí, 2. května 2022 - Štrasburk Revidované vydání

14. Změna přílohy IV a V nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) 2019/1021 o perzistentních organických znečišťujících látkách (rozprava)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je rozprava o správe, ktorú predkladá Martin Hojsík v mene výboru pre životné prostredie, verejné zdravie a bezpečnosť potravín, o návrhu Zmena príloh IV a V k nariadeniu (EÚ) 2019/1021 o perzistentných organických látkach (COM(2021)0656 – C9-0396/2021 – 2021/0340(COD)) (A9-0092/2022).


  Martin Hojsík, rapporteur. – Mr President, as the rapporteur for the review of the waste limits for the persistent organic pollutants, I’m very proud of what we have achieved in the ENVI Committee, but also of the great support from all the major groups. I would therefore like to thank all my colleagues who are supporting low, responsible limits for the content of the POPs in the waste.

And we are not talking about some nice chemicals, these are some of the worst chemicals known to mankind. Examples: we are talking about PFAs – forever chemicals; we talking about dioxins, DDT. And unfortunately, even years after the restrictions, after we banned these chemicals, we still find them in the water, we still find them in the products: in the toys that our kids play with, or in the breastmilk of the new mothers.

That is why the international Stockholm Convention requires parties, including the European Union, to prohibit and/or take legal and administrative measures necessary to eliminate – and I am highlighting eliminate, going down to zero – both the production and the use of chemicals listed in the Annex A, and their import and export. Why? Because they are persistent, they are for ever, they do not really break apart. And the limits? The limits are there because we have to have some limits. But ultimately, they are also bio—accumulative, they are going up in the food chain, and we are on top of the food chain.

A recent report from the scientists, who concluded that the chemical pollution has now passed the safe limits for humanity, is indeed and should be a global wake—up call. Therefore, what we decide during this review, and with the other co—legislators, will have an impact on public health and environment. It will have impact beyond national and European boundaries, as the waste limits also influence what we dispose in third countries, especially in developing countries. It is also why African countries are desperately asking EU to adopt low limits, because they see this as a light at the end of the tunnel to limit pollution to their own environment from the waste that we dump there. The limits that we adopt decide whether to allow those dangerous chemicals to enter our lives through waste.

Adoption of the ENVI report means a clear ‘no’ the toxic economy, clear ‘no’ to toxic recycled material, because these are waste limits. But dumping of waste, think of resource for the circular economy. We don’t want a circular economy that contains toxic chemicals. So I hope that tomorrow we will defend the result from the Environment Committee, and it will help to free our economy from pollution, increase the trust of our citizens in recycled materials and products. This is absolute precondition for a circular economy. I believe that this will be the case, as our report is ambitious but also realistic at the same time. The limits that we propose are within the impact assessment of the Commission. And the Commission said that it was technically and economically feasible. Therefore, there is no reason why not to adopt lower limits that the Commission proposed.

As a step forward towards toxic—free future, my ENVI report proposes to adopt a limit of 200 mg/kg on some of PBDEs, brominated flame retardants, with a review to lower it further in next 5 years; 200 mg/kg for the HBCDD, with a review to decrease it to 100 mg in 5 years; considerably lower limits for dioxins and furans; thresholds for the PFOAs to reflect the commitment in the chemicals strategy for sustainability to reduce the contamination by the PFAS that sadly many people are affected with; limit of 420 mg/kg for short—chain chlorinated paraffins; and we are also adding a new group of perfluorinated substances that will be soon listed – and by soon, I mean early June – to the Convention; last but not least, we address the incoherence between the classification of all waste containing old and new POPs to ensure effective treatment of all POPs waste.

I hope that by adopting the report tomorrow, we, the European Parliament, will stand behind the public interest, and I hope that we get a strong mandate for our negotiations in a trilogue. It will not be easy, but I can promise you we’ll do the best.




  Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, let me start by expressing my sincere gratitude to this House for the hard work that went into the highly technical and very important report we are discussing this evening and which you will vote on tomorrow. I would like to thank the ENVI Committee and especially the rapporteur, Mr Hojsík and all shadow rapporteurs for an extremely thorough and timely report.

We need to remember that this legislative revision will be instrumental in helping us attain the objectives of the European Green Deal. It is fully in line with the zero pollution action plan, the chemical strategy for sustainability and the circular economy action plan. It also implements our international obligations under the Stockholm Convention and, of course, it ensures the environmentally sound management of waste which contains persistent organic pollutants toxic to the environment and to human health.

We very much appreciate your efforts to find the best approach to minimise emissions of persistent organic pollutants from waste and to promote the uptake of safe secondary materials.

Looking at the amendments you propose, I see that our objectives are clearly aligned. I also note that you would like to go further and faster on the limit values to be set in waste for most of the substances in scope. I also take note of your request to the Commission to equate the concept of the persistent organic pollutants waste with that of hazardous waste in the review of EU waste legislation, and of your proposal to list an additional family of these substances constituted by perfluorohexane sulfonic acid and its components.

Setting these limits is a delicate exercise. We need to consider both our obligation and our very legitimate desire to reduce the presence of these substances to a minimum, but also technical feasibility and proportionality. The interplay with Green Deal objectives such as climate neutrality and the ambition for a more circular economy are also very important and need to be taken into account.

All these points will require further discussion in the coming weeks and months. Some of them will depend on the decision to be taken in the forthcoming Conference of the parties to the Stockholm Convention about the listing.

Thanks to the swift and efficient work on this complex file in the ENVI Committee, it has been possible to build broad support for your mandate, little more than five months after the Commission adopted its proposal. This is truly remarkable, bringing us to where we are today with trilogues scheduled to commence in less than two weeks.

The legislative proposal to amend the waste annexes of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation was one of the first deliverables the Commission proposed under the circular economy action plan. It may also be the first to be adopted, with a political agreement in sight before the end of June.

And I sincerely hope we can achieve that. And I can assure you that we can count on your sustained support and you can count on the Commission’s constructive support during the negotiations.


  Deirdre Clune, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, at the outset I would like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Hojsík, for his cooperation and for bringing us all together. And we have, I hope, a balanced report tomorrow that will get the approval of this House, as persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, are carbon-based compounds that remain in the environment for a long time, toxic organic compounds, and because of their very slow breakdown properties, they’re known as ‘forever chemicals’.

They can be transported long distance, cross-border, by air, by water, ending up in the food chain and ultimately accumulating in human tissue. They can be passed from one generation to the next, even if they are no longer required or used, they still persist in our environment. And one of the risks of POPs is that whilst they are no longer required, they can still be present in waste streams such as construction waste, packaging and plastics, electronic waste, among others.

No country or Union can manage these elements unless we have cooperation internationally, so it’s essential for the Aarhus Protocol, the Stockholm Convention, to find the restrictions necessary for such pollutants. These revisions that we have today will seek to minimise, eliminate where possible, the releases of these POPs – well, I think they should be consistently called persistent organic pollutants – and to regulate the waste containing or contaminated by such chemicals. And I believe that this ambitious proposal will contribute to better management of these toxic wastes and to their removal or to their destruction.

The objective of my work and that of my colleagues I know has always been to protect human health and the environment from these polluting substances. And I believe that we are going a long way to doing that here. So this report attempts to strike a balance with our Green Deal ambitions relating to toxic-free material cycles, recycling and circularity and reducing greenhouse emissions. So I’d encourage us all to support this tomorrow and to give us the mandate to move forward to the trilogues.


  Maria Arena, au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, derrière ce petit mot gentil qui s’appelle POP, qui pourrait sembler sympathique, se cachent des substances particulièrement dangereuses, cancérigènes, toxiques pour la reproduction et qui viennent perturber notre système endocrinien. Ce sont des molécules chimiques que l’on retrouve dans les dioxines, dans les pesticides, dans les insecticides ou encore dans les retardateurs de flamme. Elles sont par ailleurs, et on la dit, très persistantes dans l’environnement. Elles nous contaminent aujourd’hui et elles contaminent les générations futures et elles contaminent aussi loin, très loin de l’endroit où on les a émises.

Décider de limites de concentrations plus basses, comme nous l’avons fait au sein de la commission de l’environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire contribue donc directement à mieux protéger les citoyens, mais aussi à assainir l'environnement pour les générations futures. Certains ont évoqué, lors des discussions, le fait que des limites plus basses de ces concentrations sur les matières recyclées conduiraient à plus d’incinération, donc plus de pollution.

Mais cela n’est pas une fatalité, car de plus en plus de techniques ne nécessitant pas justement la combustion sont aujourd’hui disponibles et permettent de détruire ces substances encore présentes aujourd’hui, et ce, sans émettre de dioxines. Ce sont donc ces filières-là que nous devons soutenir en imposant des limites plus contraignantes plutôt que d’inciter à incorporer ces substances toxiques dans le recyclage.

Notre commission demande aussi un alignement du seuil déchets dangereux avec les limites prévues à l’annexe 4, et ce, pour une meilleure gestion de ces déchets hautement toxiques, au moment où nous révisons le règlement sur l’exportation des déchets, parce que nous devons aussi être vigilants sur ce que nous faisons en dehors de l’Union.

Je rappelle que des limites trop faibles de polluants organiques persistants dans les déchets sont contraires à l’objectif de la convention de Stockholm, et donc il s’agit maintenant d’être cohérents. Je vous invite donc à soutenir ce texte qui demande aussi à la Commission de revoir ses ambitions à la hausse lors du trilogue, et ce pour contribuer à la réalisation d’un environnement non toxique et sans délai.


  Manuela Ripa, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Die EU hat im Rahmen des europäischen Green Deal zwei große Ziele: die ressourcenschonende Kreislaufwirtschaft einerseits und frei von Schadstoffen zu sein andererseits. Beide sind zentrale Ziele für unsere Gesellschaft. Jedoch passen sie im Falle von persistenten organischen Stoffen, kurz POP, nicht zusammen, denn POP gehören zu den gefährlichsten und schädlichsten Chemikalien überhaupt, sowohl für unsere Gesundheit als auch für die Umwelt.

Hier muss ganz klar der Grundsatz gelten: Erst gefährliche Chemikalien raus aus den Produkten und dann recyceln oder gar nicht recyceln. Deshalb müssen Grenzwerte für POP—Abfälle so streng wie möglich ausfallen. Sie dürfen nicht durch Recycling wieder in den Kreislauf zurückgeführt werden. Je strenger wir diese Giftstoffe handhaben, desto mehr werden auch die Innovationen bei den Produkten und beim Recycling erhöht, POP-freie Produkte zu entwickeln. Ziel muss es sein, POP komplett aus unseren Alltagsprodukten zu entfernen. Unser Vorschlag ist der richtige Weg für den Schutz unserer Kinder und für eine schadstofffreie Umwelt.


  Aurélia Beigneux, au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, pendant des années, ce Parlement a prôné une mondialisation sans limites, préférant le mondial au local et favorisant les intérêts des grands groupes contre les attentes des citoyens. Tous les traités de libre-échange ont été signés. Toutes les politiques ultralibérales ont été déployées.

Alors félicitations, car aujourd'hui vient l'heure du bilan. À cause de ces choix néfastes, la pollution par le plastique est devenue la conséquence la plus visible de cette mondialisation désastreuse. On sait évidemment que l'environnement ne peut pas assimiler ce plastique et on connait évidemment les répercussions inadmissibles sur la vie animale, notamment aquatique. Le plastique est vecteur de substances extrêmement toxiques pour le corps humain, on le sait, mais les polluants organiques persistants sont également présents dans notre vie quotidienne. La première urgence est donc d'alerter nos concitoyens sur ces risques majeurs.

Mais lorsque la Commission décide enfin d'agir, les solutions proposées relèvent, comme toujours, de la précipitation, sans aucune concertation avec les acteurs de terrain. Les experts, comme les professionnels du secteur du bois par exemple, nous mettent en garde contre certaines de vos solutions et déplorent le manque de consultation. Nos interlocuteurs à nous, ce sont les professionnels et pas vos idoles comme Greta Thunberg.

Alors, on le sait, pour vous, l'écologie ne peut être que punitive et fédéraliste. Mais celle que nous proposons est localiste et nationale. Vous avez fait de l'environnement un club privé qui a applaudi les propositions les plus antinationales et les plus hystériques. Pendant ce temps, les citoyens les plus concernés ne voient jamais l'action de l'Union européenne, sauf pour saborder leur travail et les sanctionner.


  Bert-Jan Ruissen, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, de volksgezondheid moet uiteraard vooropstaan bij de vaststelling van grenswaarden voor verontreiniging in gerecyclede producten. We moeten echter wel nagaan of dit vanuit het oogpunt van sortering mogelijk is. De amendementen van collega Vondra verdienen daarom absoluut onze steun.

Ik ben blij dat ook PFAS in de bijlage worden genoemd, maar ben niettemin van mening dat op dit vlak meer actie nodig is. Lozingen in oppervlaktewater kunnen hiermee namelijk niet worden voorkomen. Ik vraag hierbij met name aandacht voor de Schelde en de Westerschelde. De vergunningen zouden in Vlaanderen zijn aangescherpt, maar wie garandeert dat alles daar nu wel op orde is?

Ik wil de Commissie dan ook vragen werk te maken van een totaalverbod op PFAS, zoals door verschillende landen wordt bepleit, en ervoor te zorgen dat het toezicht en de handhaving in de lidstaten naar behoren verlopen. We moeten de tijd van giftige lozingen definitief achter ons laten.


  Anja Hazekamp, namens de Fractie The Left. – Voorzitter, al tientallen jaren vergiftigen wij onze leefomgeving, en daarmee ook onszelf, met chemische stoffen die voor eeuwig giftig blijven. We moeten van deze vervuilende erfenis af.

Wij hebben veel te lang zeer gevaarlijke stoffen gebruikt in brandvertragers, antiaanbaklagen en post-its. Ik ben daarom blij dat de Commissie en het Parlement strengere normen willen vaststellen voor deze stoffen. Het is van cruciaal belang dat we ervoor zorgen dat onze grondstoffenstromen, waaronder gerecycled afval, volkomen veilig zijn.

Er is echter veel meer actie nodig. Wij weten van meer stoffen, waaronder alle PFAS en nieuwe stoffen zoals GenX, dat ze zo gevaarlijk en zo hardnekkig zijn dat ze verboden moeten worden. Nederland heeft samen met een aantal andere landen een voorstel gedaan voor een Europees verbod op deze stoffen. Ik wil de Commissie dan ook vragen hier zo snel mogelijk werk van te maken.

Ten slotte ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.


  Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Patvarieji organiniai teršalai dėl išskirtinai neigiamo poveikio aplinkai ir žmonių sveikatai privalo būti atitinkamai reglamentuojami ir nuolat vertinami. Priimant sprendimus reikėtų atsižvelgti į tai, kad patvarieji organiniai teršalai ne tik ilgai nesuyra, bet ir gali pasklisti toli nuo savo šaltinio bei atsidurti kitose valstybėse. Ne veltui nuo pastarųjų apsaugoti žmonių sveikatą ir aplinką yra priimta Stokholmo konvencija.

Tikiu, kad svarstomas pasiūlymas yra tinkamas siekiant žaliojo kurso tikslų. Turėtų būti skatinamas tik toks perdirbimas, kuris užtikrintų netoksiškų medžiagų ciklus. Neturi būti pateisinamas žalingų ir pavojingų cheminių medžiagų įtraukimas į perdirbimo procesus, kuomet naudojimui ir vartojimui sugrįžtų aptariamos pavojų sveikatai keliančios medžiagos. Teisinga yra orientuotis į tai, kad nustatomos ribinės vertės būtų suderinamos su mokslo ir technikos pažanga. Taip pat vertėtų ieškoti visų įmanomų būdų, kurie galėtų užtikrinti pažangių atliekų rūšiavimo ir nuodingųjų medžiagų pašalinimo iš jų technologijų skatinimą, remtis mokslu ir investuoti į tai. Paremdami teikiamą pasiūlymą, užtikrinsime geresnį patvarių organinių teršalų ir ES žaliojo kurso tikslų suderinamumą.


  Cindy Franssen (PPE). – Voorzitter, in een duurzaam milieubeleid wordt ingezet op een milieu zonder vervuiling en wordt altijd rekening gehouden met de gezondheid van de mens. Zover zijn we echter nog niet. Er ligt voor ons nog altijd een zware marathon in het verschiet.

Wij kunnen onszelf niettemin veel tegenwind besparen door te voorkomen dat giftige stoffen via het recyclingproces een tweede leven kregen. Het kan immers niet de bedoeling zijn mensen opnieuw aan schadelijke en vaak giftige chemische stoffen bloot te stellen. We willen en moeten zowel werknemers als consumenten maximaal beschermen. Er zijn, zeker nu we in het kader van de circulaire economie steeds meer inzetten op recycling, strengere regels nodig om de blootstelling te beperken en te voorkomen. Ook de circulaire economie moet gifvrij zijn. De grenswaarden die we vandaag strenger maken, vormen in dit verband een eerste stap in de juiste richting. Dit kan en moet echter sneller.

De regulering van schadelijke stoffen moet niet langer per stof maar per groep worden aangepakt. Niet-essentiële toepassingen van stoffen waarvan bewezen is dat ze schadelijk zijn, moeten onherroepelijk worden afgeschaft. De volksgezondheid moet in deze dossiers altijd en resoluut de richting van onze regelgeving aangeven. In dit geval is deze richting strenger.


Zgłoszenia z sali


  Maria Spyraki (PPE). – Madam President, today we are facing another important challenge, and this is how to practically align the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation with the Stockholm Convention and with the overall aim to protect human health and the environment.

What we need to keep in mind is that in each and every step we have to set the basis for sustainable chemicals by design, maintaining the precautionary approach and also setting the standards for POPs in waste. We therefore need to take actions to prohibit, while implementing legal and regulatory measures necessary to eliminate both the production and use of chemicals listed in Annex A and the import and export of these chemicals. We have to guarantee that the transition to a high—quality, toxic—free materials cycle cannot coexist with an approach that allows the recycling of POPs—containing waste based on weak POPs limit values. In this regard, we should be able to establish a framework, but it is about creating a global level playing field, leveraging, at the same time, the EU position on the chemical markets.

I am fully in line with the limits that the rapporteur proposed to the respective annexes. Adoption of high limits leads to contamination of recycling of POPs, which re-enter the economy instead of being disposed of. And needless to say that the market players will have a strong role in the implementation of the POPs Regulation. They will be able, according to the market knowledge, a condition to adapt for a toxic-free environment and a truly circular economy.


  Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, people living in Ireland produce more than 40 million tonnes of waste every year. Most of our hazardous products are exported to other European countries, and much of this waste contains toxic organic compounds that we call POPs.

During the process, as colleagues have said, whether ingested or inhaled, these pose a severe risk to human health and to the environment. And shockingly, now, we find that POPs can be found worldwide, in all major climate zones and geographic areas, including deserts, where there are no significant sources of POPs.

This is the reality of an insane economic system which generates pollution without a sense of responsibility for future generations. While we talk about exporting our waste and improving our recycling processes, this won't protect the entire biosphere from toxic properties. So while I welcome the tightening of limits and so on, we mustn't forget that we must concentrate on achieving non-toxic material change and a new approach to human activity.


  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, the transition to high-quality and toxic—free material cycles cannot be achieved while allowing persistent organic pollutants to be recycled in materials. The weak limits on the presence of persistent organic pollutants proposed by the Commission would undermine the Stockholm Convention and the European Green Deal. Weak limits would do more harm than good. Weak limits would undermine the credibility of recycling.

I’m fairly happy with the text of the regulation before us, as amended by the Environment Committee. The limits and the presence of persistent organic pollutants that are agreed are all stricter than the current limits and most of them go beyond the Commission’s proposal. This should lead to an enhanced protection of the environment and human health.

The elimination of toxic legacy substances from waste is vital to ensure a safe and clean circular economy and this amending regulation can certainly help to achieve that.


(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


  Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I have listened carefully to the different interventions and I have taken good note of the ideas and desires of honourable Members for increased ambition. I am pleased to see that we agree on the need to increase the scope and the stringency of our control on persistent organic pollutants in waste. In doing so, we will ensure tighter and better waste management. It will mean destroying greater amounts of these pollutants in waste and ensuring that what remains is managed in a sound way minimising emissions to the environment.

Regarding the level of ambition, I hear very clearly your call for limits that are stricter than those proposed by the Commission for most substances. The Commission too would like to go further, but when we proposed these limits, we did so on the basis of the best information available and on the basis of a balanced assessment of what is feasible from a technical, environmental and socioeconomic point of view.

In its proposal, the Commission has set ambitious limit values. They are systematically lower than the values for substances that were already in place. We also met the reduction requirements demanded by this House a little less than three years ago. We therefore consider that further work and honest discussions will be necessary for some of the limits proposed.

We need to find a base that allows recyclers and other operators to continue and even accelerate the essential work they do in reducing the presence of persistent organic pollutants in waste. Recyclers are not the problem. They are part of the solution.

Thank you once again for your work and for the very useful discussion today. And we look forward to engaging very soon in constructive trilogue negotiations with you and the Council.


  Martin Hojsík, rapporteur. – Madam President, first of all, let me thank you for the very interesting debate on this topic and for the support and encouragement that I got from you during this debate.

Now, this is indeed a global problem. I myself was in the Arctic more than 20 years ago to witness the toxic pollution there. I was on the Agbogbloshie dumpsite in Ghana, where computers with PBDEs from Europe are ending and polluting the local environment, and I witnessed the measurements of mountain goats from the High Tatras in Slovakia, polluted with POPs chemicals.

We really have to eliminate these chemicals. Toxic recycling is not an option. And I have to say to the Commission that what we are proposing is not something that we pulled out of our fingers. These values are stricter than those proposed by the Commission, yes, but are within what the Commission, in its own impact assessment, said is technically, economically and socially feasible. Just the Commission decided to go for the middle of the range and we decided to go for ambition, because we believe that human health needs to have a very strong priority, that the best cancer is the one you don’t have to cure. It’s actually also the cheapest and with the least suffering.

I was happy to hear the engagement also from the ECHA being stronger on the PFAS. And I’m really happy for that. But I also hope that we can be equally strong on the brominated flame-retardants. The technologies are there. We really need to clean up our economy of the toxic chemicals, of the worst toxic chemicals, which the POPs are, to start proper transformation to a sustainable circular economy without the toxic chemicals, with the trust of the consumers, and with the future that fits the planetary limits.


  Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się we wtorek 3 maja 2022 r.

Poslední aktualizace: 4. července 2022Právní upozornění - Ochrana soukromí