Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020902.6.1-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European packaging directive has had a considerable impact. We are sorting and collecting our waste. There are now recycling installations all over Europe. There are people across Europe processing the waste that we all produce. This is demanding and labour-intensive work. We are doing all of this for the sake of the environment, and we must persevere, for the waste mountain is still growing. However, we should not turn a blind eye to a few difficulties that the packaging directive poses.
I should like to finish off with a word on sustainable development. In Johannesburg, the entire world is talking about sustainable development. Today, we have the opportunity of turning this fine concept into reality. The concept of sustainable development must be given a practical dimension. We must clear up our own mess instead of exporting it to developing countries. This is why we must be serious about producer responsibility. We have done this before in the directive on electronic waste and the directive on end-of-life vehicles. Producer responsibility is not only of a financial nature. Producers must also innovate in terms of environmental quality and their packaging. Innovation is also the best guarantee for retaining employment in the packaging industry. It is the best guarantee for future generations not to be saddled with our waste, a shortage of natural resources and climate changes. We hope that the revision of the packaging directive helps to achieve this. I thank you for your attention and look forward to the debate.
First of all, there are major discrepancies between the Member States in their implementation of the packaging directive. This is sometimes due to laxity, but often also due to real problems, such as a lack of waste disposal facilities.
Secondly, the environmental yield is not always obvious. We think that recycling benefits the environment, but there is a limit. In the case of excessive distances, for example, the environmental burden outweighs the benefit.
Thirdly, we still notice there is a great deal of unnecessary packaging. Needless to say, packaging plays an essential role, namely to protect the product, but a double layer of plastic for a small loaf of bread is surely somewhat excessive. These matters were raised in Parliament's resolution last year. We discussed the Commission's proposal against this background. We support the Commission's review proposal, but do consider it to be too restricted. The area of prevention, in particular, has had hardly any work done on it. Ladies and gentlemen, we have discussed this topic at great length. I would thank all my fellow MEPs and the shadow rapporteurs, in particular, for their contributions. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is able to submit a result that sounds the right note for new steps towards sustainable developments. I should like to single out a few key points.
First of all, there is the directive's environmental result, which is, unfortunately, not always evident. The environmental impact should be clear if the public are to continue to be motivated to separate their waste. This is why the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy demands a clear evaluation of the environmental yield of the Packaging Directive. Not only should the environmental impact be clear to the public, it should also be a primary consideration in the choices made by industry and governments. We must lay the foundation for this here, which brings me to my second point: prevention.
Producers opt for product packaging on the basis of essential functions, within which there are various options. Soft drinks can be wrapped in cardboard, metal, glass, plastic or a combination of these. The Environmental Committee asks producers to opt for the most environmentally-friendly alternative, for which an indicator is to be prescribed. This Packaging Environment Indicator consists of at least two parameters: the volume of waste and the emission of greenhouse gases. As the emission of greenhouse gases is a global problem, the same value is to be accorded to this parameter in each country. However, the waste issues and recycling capacity are different in each country, and thus the values accorded should differ in line with this. The Packaging Environment Indicator has generated a great deal of discussion. One effect is at any rate clear. Different materials, such as paper, metal, glass and plastic must compete with each other on the basis of environmental quality. This is how an incentive is created to achieve consistent innovation in the environmental sphere, an incentive to invest in recycling capacity. In this way, each country develops its optimum recycling capacity. It is important for us to take the first step now. Industry wants clear political statements that at least indicate the way.
My third point concerns recycling. As long as the prevention policy is not fully functioning, we need to work with recycling targets. The problem with the recycling target is that it can never absolutely suit all countries. What is ambitious for the United Kingdom and Spain, is not for Germany or Austria. I consider the 65% proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy to be a good compromise for first reading. There has been a great deal of debate about whether material-specific targets should be prescribed or not. Here too, I propose a compromise solution: no material-specific targets but a distinction between easy and difficult materials, with a minimum of 25% for plastic and wood and 60% for the rest. This leaves Member States sufficient options to achieve the best possible percentages. As for maximum targets, these were a good idea in the initial stages of recycling, but are now absolutely redundant. Excessive national targets no longer distort the market.
My next point concerns re-use. The discussion surrounding re-use focuses mainly on drinks packaging, which has again become a live issue in a number of countries, particularly in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Re-use also generates most internal market problems. The obligation of re-use is often to the advantage of local producers of beer or mineral water. It is, in fact, an improper use of re-use, and one that must be avoided. This is why we must put the environmental result at the top of the agenda in this respect too. Member States must promote re-use if this is more beneficial to the environment.
A final point concerns heavy metals. It is clear to everyone that these must be eliminated. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has opted for a complete ban. It has been pointed out that this hinders the use of recycled material, and this is obviously not our intention. This is why we would clarify once again that the use of heavy metals should be banned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples