Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-376"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.15.2-376"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by acknowledging the great work done by Mrs Corbey in drawing up this report.
It is clear that in this particular case we are dealing with a directive whose implementation has been very complicated in the majority of Member States, given that the fine-tuning of the mechanisms needed to meet the objectives of the directive is in itself a very complicated issue. It is one thing to issue a piece of legislation, because everything holds up on paper, and a completely different thing to put it into practice.
I thank the rapporteur for the commitments we have been able to make and I regret that we could not agree on certain points, which are by no means trivial ones.
Firstly I would like to make it patently clear that this should have been a report on the implementation of the directive on packaging, but it has turned into a report that is trying to tell the Commission the direction it should be taking with regard to the revision of the directive in question. It is a clear example of the temptation that we frequently give into in this Parliament, which is to forget that it is the Commission that holds the legislative initiative.
We in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats propose the following: Firstly, that the objectives for the prevention and reduction of packaging waste should not be binding, nor should they be classified by material, in order that competitiveness is maintained between them. For we should not forget that the legal basis of this directive is the environment and also the internal market. We think, however, that these objectives should be linked to the quantity of the product that is packaged and put on the market.
Secondly: the responsibility for the prevention and removal of packaging and packaging waste must be shared between producers, packaging companies, retailers and consumers, and not only the producer, as the draft report proposes.
Thirdly: Life Cycle Analysis is a very useful method from an environmental point of view, that should be taken into account, but it cannot be proposed as the standard norm to ensure that the requirements of Annex II are being met. These standard norms should be issued by the European Committee for Standardisation and this body, in turn, should continue working in this direction.
Fourthly, we are against introducing any other new standard apart from the so-called ‘green dot’, already in use in most countries.
Lastly, we propose that the recitals alluding to the situation in specific Member States in 1998 with regard to compliance with the objectives of the directive be removed, for at this time the directive was in the process of being transposed, and the data, and I quote directly from recital B, “are not meaningful for the purpose of assessing the real degree to which the directive's objectives have been met”."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples