<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"1.Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands has for years been Europe’s front-runner in the recycling of collected waste glass, with 78% of such glass being re-used in 1997 — and as much as about 90% until quite recently –, and that this was made possible over a 30-year period by systematic collection through a generous supply of communal bottle banks and processing contracts with the glass industry?  2.Is the Commission aware that the continued collection of used glass in the Netherlands is now being made difficult because the supply of white, brown and green glass is growing rapidly and piling up in huge mountains of glass, which means that the stocks for processing in glass factories have increased to 24weeks’ supply (compared with the normal figure of, for instance, 10weeks’ supply in the city of Emmen); and that companies with contracts for collecting waste glass from communal bottle banks find that they no longer need to pay the communes concerned for the material because it can no longer be processed cost-effectively, since the current surplus enables them to replenish their supplies more cheaply?  3.Is the Commission aware that these problems do not derive from circumstances in the Netherlands, but from the improved collection of used glass in other EU Member States (primarily the UK), where the necessary processing capacity is still insufficient, leading to a marked rise in the supply of used glass available to manufacturers more cheaply on the Dutch market and thus displacing domestic collection?  4.Do you recollect my Question E‑2909/00, on the sharp rise at that time in imports of broken glass from Germany that was then disrupting Dutch collection and processing systems, and your answer of 6November 2000 referring to Regulation (EEC) No259/93(1), Directive94/62/EC(2) and Decision97/138/EC(3) and taking up the point that transporting recoverable waste over long distances increases the environmental impact, that the practice must not be allowed to drastically affect the current national waste management options, that between 50% and 65% of packaging waste must be recovered, and that the structure of collection and recycling systems could be optimised in the light of the current experience?  5.What is the Commission doing to ensure that waste glass shipments are dispersed, so that the aims referred to in Question 4 are everywhere attained?  Source: The Dutch daily ‘Algemeen Dagblad’ of 27December 2008.    (1)OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p.1.  (2)OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p.10.  (3)OJ L 52, 22.2.1997, p.22."
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [7]. </s>
1.Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands has for years been Europe’s front-runner in the recycling of collected waste glass, with 78% of such glass being re-used in 1997 — and as much as about 90% until quite recently –, and that this was made possible over a 30-year period by systematic collection through a generous supply of communal bottle banks and processing contracts with the glass industry?  2.Is the Commission aware that the continued collection of used glass in the Netherlands is now being made difficult because the supply of white, brown and green glass is growing rapidly and piling up in huge mountains of glass, which means that the stocks for processing in glass factories have increased to 24weeks’ supply (compared with the normal figure of, for instance, 10weeks’ supply in the city of Emmen); and that companies with contracts for collecting waste glass from communal bottle banks find that they no longer need to pay the communes concerned for the material because it can no longer be processed cost-effectively, since the current surplus enables them to replenish their supplies more cheaply?  3.Is the Commission aware that these problems do not derive from circumstances in the Netherlands, but from the improved collection of used glass in other EU Member States (primarily the UK), where the necessary processing capacity is still insufficient, leading to a marked rise in the supply of used glass available to manufacturers more cheaply on the Dutch market and thus displacing domestic collection?  4.Do you recollect my Question E‑2909/00, on the sharp rise at that time in imports of broken glass from Germany that was then disrupting Dutch collection and processing systems, and your answer of 6November 2000 referring to Regulation (EEC) No259/93(1), Directive94/62/EC(2) and Decision97/138/EC(3) and taking up the point that transporting recoverable waste over long distances increases the environmental impact, that the practice must not be allowed to drastically affect the current national waste management options, that between 50% and 65% of packaging waste must be recovered, and that the structure of collection and recycling systems could be optimised in the light of the current experience?  5.What is the Commission doing to ensure that waste glass shipments are dispersed, so that the aims referred to in Question 4 are everywhere attained?  Source: The Dutch daily ‘Algemeen Dagblad’ of 27December 2008.    (1)OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p.1.  (2)OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p.10.  (3)OJ L 52, 22.2.1997, p.22.