WRITTEN QUESTION E-1240/03 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. EU waste strategy.
Date: 2003-04-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU policy, packaging, pollution control measures, waste, waste management, waste recycling

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/167

During this period a number of actions were taken. A study was completed on the workshop equipment
needed by sector and area of expertise. Detailed specifications were also drafted. The planning of all
necessary complementary actions (including training of trainers and development of educational and
training tools) was completed by 2002.

In terms of physical output, workshops have been developed in 316 technical education establishments,
while 130 others are currently starting up. A further 135 etablishments are set to receive workshops on
the basis of the most recent tender.

This information suggests that there have been no undue delays in the implementation of the action in
question.

(2004/C 11 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1240/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: EU waste strategy

What steps, if any, is the Commission taking to prepare a strategy and recommendations for reducing the
total volume of waste being generated across the EU? Is the Commission able to identify any examples in
Member States of successful implementation of zero waste growth or total waste reduction policies?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce requirements for a minimum content of recyclable
materials in all goods and packaging?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Data on overall waste generation are too scarce to allow a judgement whether particular Member States
have been successful or not in reducing overall waste generation (1). Overall, waste quantities still seem to
be on the rise. Therefore, while the goal of 200 waste is one to which we could aspire, it is not yet
possible to identify any examples in Member States of successful zero waste growth or total waste
reduction policies. Data on municipal waste (around 10-15 % of overall waste) are more complete although
there should still be some degree of caution as regards the exactness of data. Data from the European
Environment Agency indicate that apart from Germany and Finland, the amount of municipal waste has
increased in all Member States between 1990 and 1995 (1). This suggests that successful strategies towards
an absolute reduction of waste generation are rare and have not led to significant overall reductions in
waste generation. More information and case studies can be found in the European Environment Agency’s
publication ‘Case studies on waste minimisation practices in Europe’ (2).

The Commission is currently preparing a thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling, pursuant to
the 6th Environment Action Programme. As a first step, a communication to the Parliament and the
Council is foreseen within the coming months. This communication will inter alia describe experiences on
waste prevention. It will launch a general debate on possible measures for waste prevention and recycling
and invites the European institutions and stakeholders to contribute to the further development of the
strategy.

C 11 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Currently, the Commission does not have plans to introduce requirements for the minimum content of
recyclable materials in all goods and packaging. It is felt that it is preferable to use recycling targets and
leave the question where to use the recycled materials to businesses and the market.

(1) Europe’s Environment: The Second Assessment;

http://reports.eea.eu.int/92-828-3351-8/en/toc.html/tab_abstract_RLR.

(2) European Environment Agency, Topic Report No. 2/2002,

http://repository.eea.eu.int/reports/topic_report/2002_2/full_report/en/html/abstract

(2004/C 11 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1248/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Brain drain

According to a recent Commission report, nearly 75 % of European PhD students in the United States
envisage staying there after gaining their PhD rather than returning to Europe. The EU has slightly more
holders of postgraduate degrees than the United States, but employs significantly fewer researchers (5.4 out
of every 1 000 in employment, compared with 8,7 in the USA); researchers currently have better prospects
in the United States.

The EU also spends much less as a whole on research and development (1,9 % of GDP compared with
2,8 % in the USA), with a particular lack of investment from the private sector. There are also signs of a
slowdown in the biotechnological revolution, with EU businesses showing weaknesses in terms of
patenting and marketing.

Given that the Lisbon strategy aims for the EU to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-
based economy in the world by 2010, and that it appears that under current conditions this objective will
be achieved only with difficulty, does the Commission intend to present a new plan of action to reverse
these unfavourable tendencies?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The brain drain and the relatively low levels of investment in research and development (R & D) and
innovation are two particularly disturbing aspects of the situation in Europe. The recently published third
European Report on Science and Technology Indicators (2003), referred to by the Honourable Member,
highlights the problems.

The Commission is aware of the situation, which is a sign that researchers and investors find Europe less
attractive than the United States. Clearly, the brain drain and the level of investment in R & D and
innovation in Europe are challenges which must be dealt with promptly if we are to achieve the ambitious
objectives of the strategy defined at the March 2000 European Summit in Lisbon.

The Commission has taken a series of initiatives to attain those objectives, with the support of the Council
and the European Parliament. At the European Council in Barcelona in March 2002, the Heads of State or
Government agreed to a considerable increase in investment in research and innovation in Europe, with a
view to bringing Union investment in research to 3 % of GDP by 2010. Most of the increase must come
from the private sector, but the public sector will have to make considerable efforts to add to the
attractiveness of the European Research Area at international level.

Following the Barcelona Summit, the Commission adopted a communication (1) launching a debate on the
ways and means of reaching the targets. On the basis of the many positive and converging reactions
received, the Commission prepared an action plan which it adopted on 30 April 2003 (2) and distributed
to Community Institutions. The plan is now being distributed to all interested parties.