29 Amendments of Mairead McGUINNESS related to 2009/2153(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that bio-waste accounts for more than 30 % of municipal solid waste; is of the opinion that better management of bio- waste will contribute to sustainable resource management and better soil protection on the one hand and combating climate change and meeting recycling and renewable energy targets on the other;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that bio-waste management should be set in the more general contexpart of a sustainable waste management cycle, both in terms of realising aimed at the rational use and conservation of resources and of reducing the globenvironmental impact;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates that bio-waste management must be structured in line with the waste treatment hierarchy, namely: prevention, recycling, other forms of waste recovery, including energy recovery, and, as a last option, disposal in landfills (Directive 1991/31/EC, Art. 5);
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expects the strategies for bio-waste management to couple recycling (includingStresses that bio-waste management includes waste prevention, recycling, composting) and energy recovery, although priority must be given to recycling and compostingin accordance with the waste hierarchy laid out in Directive 2008/98/EC;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) to be a feasible and fully tested possibln effective way of diverting significant quantities of putrescible waste away from landfills for use in composting, anaerobic digestion and energy recovery;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that bio-waste needs to be regarded asNotes the potential for bio-waste to be a valuable natural resource that can be used to produce compost, which is essential to preserving land productivity, reducing the use of high energy intensive chemical fertilisers and increasing in the production of compost for application to soils; recognises, however, that the overall potential for bio-waster retention in the soilcycling on soils is limited;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that a number ofStresses the absolute need for strict quality control standards should be observed in the use of compost so that applying compost to the soil does not lead to its gradual pollution, producing obvious negative environmental and economic effects; urges the Commission to present legislative proposals on qualitative criteria for compost and digestateon bio-waste treatment and compost quality; believes that agricultural land cannot be used as a ‘dumping ground’ for compost and that a number of quality standards should be observed in the application of compost to soil so that it does not lead to pollution;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is of the opinionReiterates that separate refuse collections, in addition to being a valid alternative to landfills are essential in order to comply with the Landfill Directive (Directive 1999/31/EC, Recital 17), provide quality input to bio-waste recycling and improve the efficiency of energy recovery; urges the Commission to introduce binding and ambitious targets for the recycling of this waste;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas bio-waste should be seen as a preciousvaluable natural resource that can be used to produce high-quality compost, thereby helping to combat soil degradation in Europe, maintaining soil productivity, reducing the use of chemical fertilisers and boosting the soil's water retention capacity,
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Considers the use of food waste disposers linked to public sewerage systems to be an option for households; calls on the Commission to examine the feasibility of this option;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers bio-waste to be a valuable renewable resource for the production of gaseous transport fuel through conversion of biogas into biomethane (mainly methane – 50% to 75% – and carbon dioxide);
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the individual Member States have different waste management systems and that use of landfill continues to be the most common disposal method for municipal solid waste in the European Union; urgescalls on the Commission, therefore, to continue its impact assessment with the aim of preparing a Community legislative proposal on biodegradable waste in 2010 to assess the need for a legislative proposal on biodegradable waste, given that a number of Member States have existing national legislative measures on the management of bio-waste;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas, given their poor implementation, the objectives set for diverting bio-waste from landfills require additional legislative guidelines if they are to be achieved,the fragmented implementation across the EU of existing legislation leads to the objectives set for diverting bio-waste from landfills not being met
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for greater public understanding of the complexity of the waste chain, including education about proper sorting and handling of waste; calls on the Commission to promote educational measures in European schools in order to encourage sustainable management of municipal solid waste, particularly at the first stage which is separate refuse collections.
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Urges the Commission to review the implementation of legislation applicable to bio-waste with a view, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, to drawing upassessing the need for a proposal for a specific directive by the end of 2010;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to lay down criteria for the production of high-quality compost;Stresses the need for constitent, risk- based, objective standards for compost, digestate and other organic residuals applied to land so that organic matter can be conserved and nutrient cycles completed without detrimental effect to crops, animals, humans, water and the environment in general.
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to lay down criteria in conjunction with member states for the production of high-quality compost;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Calls on the CommissionRecommends member states to establish a mandatory separate collection system for the Member States, except where this is not viable or is notand the best option from the environmental and economic point of view but, in the interest of maximising citizen participation this should not be to the exclusion of other methods;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point a (new)
Paragraph 4 – point a (new)
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point b (new)
Paragraph 4 – point b (new)
b) Considers food waste disposers linked to public sewerage systems to be an option for separating kitchen bio-waste at source so that it can be diverted from landfill and converted to soil improver (compost or digestate) and biogas.
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point c (new)
Paragraph 4 – point c (new)
c) Considers anaerobic digestion to be especially useful for bio-waste because it yields nutrient- rich soil improver, digestate, and also biogas, which is renewable energy that can be converted to biomethane or used to generate base-load electricity. To enable economy of scale it is important that co-digestion of bio-waste and other feedstocks should not be inhibited.
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Commission and Member States to promote environmental awareness-raising activities in the field of bio-waste, particularly in schools, so as to foster the sustainable management of bio- waste and raise public awareness of waste prevention and the advantages of separate collectionbiological treatment of bio-waste;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point a (new)
Paragraph 5 – point a (new)
a) Calls on the Commission to recognise that policies should be tested for their contributions to mitigating the unacceptably rapid depletion of the world's phosphate resources.
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point b (new)
Paragraph 5 – point b (new)
b) Call on the Commission to consider bio-waste and other organic residuals as resources, whilst ensuring consistent safety, for maintaining soil organic matter and completing nutrient cycles, especially phospate, irrespective of their origins as this will enable better and more sustainable management and economies of scale.
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point c (new)
Paragraph 5 – point c (new)
c) Considers that treated bio-waste should be used to conserve organic matter and complete nutrient cycles, especially phosphate, by recycling it to land.
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point d (new)
Paragraph 5 – point d (new)
d) Believes that managing bio-waste for recovery and conservation of resources, such as organic matter, biogas, phosphate, etc., should be part of the EU's strategy for sustainability.