1. We consider that the following raises questions of political importance,
but make no recommendation for its further consideration:--
Department of Environment
(17596)
11008/96
COM(96)515 |
Re-examined proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 259/93 on the
supervision and control of shipment of waste within, into and out of the European
Community. |
|
| Legal base: |
Article 130s(1); co-operation; qualified majority voting (but amendment of the re-examined
proposal requires unanimity). |
Background
1.1 We last considered a version of this proposal, designed to control transfrontier
shipments of hazardous waste, on 2 April 1996[2]. At that stage
it had been amended by the Commission following the European Parliament's opinion. There was then
an outstanding problem between the Parliament and the Council on the definition of hazardous wastes,
with the Council rejecting the European Parliament's amendments when it agreed its Common Position.
1.2 The present document is a re-examined Commission proposal, taking account of the
amendments put forward by the EP on second reading -- which were identical to those it put forward
at first reading. We did not receive the Explanatory Memorandum (dated 27 November) until 6
December. We therefore delayed its consideration until we knew the outcome of discussions at the
Environment Council on 9 December. A letter dated 16 December from the Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr Clappison) sets out the position
following those discussions.
The current proposal
1.3 At the Environment Council there was unanimous agreement to amend the
Commission's re-examined proposal. The main feature of the Commission proposal was to ban exports
of waste listed in annexes III and IV[3] to the Waste Shipments
Regulation, together with any waste appearing on the EC's Hazardous Waste List which did not appear
in annexes III or IV. One of the problems with the Commission proposal was that the list of wastes
which are to fall under the export ban resulted in linkage between the ban on exports to non-OECD
countries and controls on movements within the OECD.
1.4 The Council proposal is to set out all "amber" and "red" list
wastes in a separate annex V, and requires the Commission to review this annex to give effect to
the Basel Convention[4] and to reflect any changes to the
Hazardous Waste List. This would avoid introducing controls on movement of waste between OECD
countries. It is therefore considered to be in line with the Government's objectives. It would
also, in the Government's view, meet the needs of the Basel Convention in a more flexible way than
that set out in the Commission's re-examined proposal.
1.5 Under the co-operation procedure, the proposal will fall if it is not agreed by
the Council within 3 months. This period expires on 23 January 1997. The agreement of the
Environment Council requires unanimity, and at present the Government has imposed a Parliamentary
Scrutiny Reserve on the proposal.
Conclusion
1.6 We welcome the information provided in the Minister's letter, which to a large
extent overtakes that in the Explanatory Memorandum (which we did not receive in time to scrutinise
the proposal before the Environment Council). The outcome of that Council would appear to meet most
of the Government's objectives and to accord with the requirements of the Basel Convention. We
consider the matter to be politically important, but we are clearing the proposal and the Government
can therefore lift its Scrutiny Reserve.
2. (17021) 5435/96; see HC 51-xv (1995-96), paragraph 11b (2 April 1996). Back
3. Known as the "amber" and "red" lists respectively. Back
4. On transboundary wastes and their disposal. Back
|
