WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/02 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Framework Waste Directive 91/156/EEC and Directive 94/31/EC — questions on the present situation in Europe with regard to waste and the recovery/recycling of waste.
Date: 2002-02-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: economic analysis, environmental protection, waste incineration, waste recycling

C 205 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

in Article 46(1) of its proposal for a Directive of the
The Commission has in fact pointed out that,
European Parliament and of the Council relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
supply, public service and public works contracts, it introduced an obligation aimed at excluding from
participation in the invitation to tender any tenderer who has been the subject of a definitive judgment for
participation in a criminal organisation,
the European
Communities. This provision has already been approved by the Parliament at the first reading under the
co-decision legislative procedure.

for corruption or for financial

fraud against

The Commission has also noted that, in this context, the Italian Government has always demonstrated its
full commitment to achieving the objectives of this proposal. In this respect, the Commission reiterates
that
the Italian Government has up to now agreed with and supported the proposals which the
Commission has made concerning the above-mentioned aspect, during the discussions on the afore-
mentioned proposal for a Directive.

2.
The Commission then pointed out that the procedures laid down by the Community Directives
currently in force, and the transparency which these bring, are also intended to combat corruption and
fraud in public contracts. The monitoring of compliance with these procedures, particularly by the
Commission but also by the national courts, plays a part in the battle against these practices. The
Commission is convinced that its new measure, once approved and in force, will help tighten up the
checks on procedures for awarding public contracts, by making it compulsory for awarding authorities to
exclude tenderers guilty of the aforementioned offences, rather than simply giving them this option, as at
present.

3.
Finally, with regard to the alleged infringement of Community law on public contracts which might
be implied in the statements made by the Italian Minister, Mr Lunardi, the Commission feels that these
statements do not, in themselves, constitute an infringement of the Community Directives in the field of
public contracts.

However, should the Honourable Member have any knowledge of award procedures for public contracts
during which the Italian authorities may have favoured entrepreneurs linked to a criminal organisation, he
is free to inform the Commission of this. If he did so, the Commission would certainly examine the
information received and request any necessary clarification from the Italian authorities, in order to check
whether there would be any reason to initiate infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC
Treaty.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 142.
(2) See page 29.

(2002/C 205 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/02

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Subject: Framework Waste Directive 91/156/EEC and Directive 94/31/EC 8 questions on the present

situation in Europe with regard to waste and the recovery/recycling of waste

According to the EU’s Framework Waste Directive (Council Directive 91/156/EEC (1) of 18 March
1.
1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste) and Council Directive 94/31/EC (2) of 27 June 1994
amending Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste,
the term recycling or recovery covers both
mechanical and feedstock recycling processes and energy recovery. Is this correct?

To what extent are waste incineration capacities in Europe currently being utilised, excluding

2.
hazardous chemical products?

3.

To what extent are incineration capacities currently being utilised in Europe:

(a)

for thermal treatment in the context of waste management, and

(b)

for energy recovery?

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/127

4. What is the current cost in Europe per tonne of waste:

(a)

for thermal treatment, and

(b)

for energy recovery?

5. What processes exist in Europe for recycling plastic waste in general, and plastic sheeting and PVC
sheeting in particular?

6. Which of the processes mentioned in paragraph 5 above can be classed as:

(a) mechanical recycling,

(b)

feedstock recycling,

(c)

energy recovery?

7. What capacities exist in Europe for the recycling processes mentioned in paragraph 5 above in the
areas of mechanical and feedstock recycling and energy recovery?

8.

How much do the following processes cost in Europe:

(a) mechanical recycling,

(b)

feedstock recycling, and

(c)

energy recovery?

Has there been any investigation into the market opportunities in Europe for products manufactured

9.
in recycling plants?

10. What market opportunities are predicted in Europe for the individual products of the various
recycling processes?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that some of the information relating to
the economics and the technicalities of recovery of plastics is not in the hands of the Commission.

1 and 6.
The words recovery and disposal are defined in Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste (1) by reference to a list of operations. The word recycling is not as such defined but the list of
recovery operations in annex II B of this Directive defines certain operations by using the word recycling.

The two operations of Annex II B of Directive 75/442/EEC mentioned in the question are:

8 Recovery operation R1: Use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy;

8 R3: Recycling/reclamation of organic substances which are not used as solvents (including composting

and other biological transformation processes).

Processes that are commonly referred to as feedstock recycling of plastics include a number of very
different processes. Some of these would be considered as a direct energy recovery operation (R1) while
others have as end product substances or polymers that may be either reused for their material content or
for their energy content. Thus, depending on what type of recovery is taking place, the processes would
either fit in R1 or R3 operations.

C 205 E/128

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

2. to 5. and 7. to 10.
available on the Commission’s web site (2) may contain some relevant information.

Certain documents and studies already available or which will shortly be made

Further information on recycling processes and on market opportunities for the recycling of materials
including plastic waste will be gathered to the extent necessary for the preparation of the thematic strategy
on recycling which is programmed in the 6th Environmental Action Programme. Any studies containing
such information will also be made available through the Commission’s web site.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) Relevant studies in page http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/facts_en.htm include:

8 Mechanical recycling of PVC wastes, Prognos;
8 Chemical Recycling of Plastics Waste (PVC and other resins), TNO;
8 Evaluation of Costs and Benefits for the Achievement of Reuse and the Recycling Targets for the different

Packaging Materials in the Frame of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC;

8 Cost of Municipal Waste Management in the EU, Ecotec (still to be uploaded).
Other information may be available in COM(1999) 752 or from page http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/events/
recycling/recycling.htm.

(2002/C 205 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/02

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Driftnets

Since 1 January 2002 the use of driftnets has been banned. This is the result of a fierce battle between
fishermen and environmentalists who considered this technique of fishing to be harmful to dolphins. Now
the pelagic trawl is under attack.

Professional fishermen believe this ban to be unfounded. Nevertheless, the decision still stands.

It is also understood that fishermen in the Mediterranean, faced with the same problem, are able to
continue working if their nets are equipped with ‘sound sytems’ to repel marine mammals.

Will the Commission say whether this method is recognised? Can this method be adopted by Atlantic
fishermen to enable them to continue working?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down
certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (1) entered into force on 1 January
2002. This means that the ban on drift-net fisheries targeting highly migratory pelagic species now applies
in all Community waters and to all Community vessels, with the exception of waters covered by Council
Regulation (EC) No 88/98 of 18 December 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the
conservation of fishery resources in the waters of the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound (2).

Regarding the issue of acoustic alarms (so-called pingers), there are currently no provisions in Community
legislation, which authorise the use of large pelagic drift-nets equipped with pingers. Pingers are a
promising technology, which may be useful in order to reduce the incidental catches of small cetaceans, at
least in some specific fisheries. This has been confirmed by the positive effect seen in the reduction in by-
catches of harbour porpoises in the Danish gillnet fishery. However, their effectiveness cannot be directly
extended to other fisheries, since both the species and the conditions in which incidental catches occurs
are different.