The House Environment Committee has considered all the amendments in detail. I am frankly pleased that the proposals, which were in direct contradiction to the principles of the circular economy, were not adopted.
However, I consider it a pity, in a way, that already now, during the debate on 29 April 2020, the proposals of the Members who suggested earlier mandatory use of bio-waste were not supported. In the meantime, it may continue to go to landfill (until 2030) and will generate a lot of greenhouse gases as it rots.
This law will hopefully be in force for a number of years (the current one has been in force for 19 years) and it is therefore a pity that the proposal to include chemical recycling of plastics in the technologies listed in the Annex has not been supported. This is the way forward for the future use of contaminated plastic waste of various materials, which avoids the simplest option: to incinerate it.
It is also a pity that the MP's proposal to earmark the State Environmental Fund's income from the waste sector, which would then be legally obliged to be used only to finance the modernisation of waste management technologies, has not been adopted .
Finally, I will not forgive myself for sighing that so far - despite a number of similar proposals by MEPs - no signal has been given to shorten the landfill lobby's "throws", proposed so far until 2030.
The legislators deserve our sincere thanks for their efforts, we are still only in the "halfway point" of the difficult negotiations...
Miloš Kužvart
ČAObH
