Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020902.6.1-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by expressing my heartfelt thanks for the way your discussion of the Commission proposal has demonstrated your commitment. I would like to comment on the most important of the amendments that have been dealt with and which are due to be voted on tomorrow. The position taken by the Commission on these is that, firstly, as regards the timing, that is to say the extension of the deadline by which the targets are to be achieved, the Commission continues to favour an ambitious timetable. In principle, though, it is able to accept delay to a limited extent.
Turning to the targets, the targets proposed by the Commission ought to remain largely unchanged. They are based on a cost/benefit analysis of the proposals. There is, in particular, no justification in cost/benefit terms for an increase in the minimum target for recycling from 55% to 65%, and so the Commission rejects this. Nor is it willing to reduce the targets for glass, paper and metals from 60%, 55% or 50% to 25%, as these materials can be recycled with great benefit to the environment and at low cost. We see these objectives, specific to certain materials, as also being necessary in terms of legislative clarity and of security of investment for firms offering recycling services.
As regards the maximum targets, the proposed deletion of the maximum target for recycling can result in distortions of the internal market if more material is collected than is capable of being recycled. This can lead to increasing problems in the sale of collected materials, especially in the countries that have introduced their own recycling programmes only at a late stage.
On the question or prioritising the prevention of waste over its management, the Commission, in principle, shares your view that it is more important to prevent waste than to manage it. However, this issue merits further consideration in terms of the criteria by which prevention should be guided, whether these should be the environmental effects or the weight involved.
The Commission is unable to endorse the introduction of 10% reduction as a quantitative prevention target, as it is not clear how this objective is to be implemented and what the costs and benefits might be. The possibility cannot be excluded that such a measure might have a negative overall impact on the environment, especially if it were only to bring about greater use of lightweight packaging such as plastic.
The requirement that, when choosing packaging, its impact on the environment should be minimised on the basis of life-cycle assessments, is in essence acceptable as proposed, even though an approach of this sort may well need to be worked out in more detail, and it is also preferable that it should be developed in the context of the Directive's basic requirements.
I would also like to express the Commission's gratitude to the rapporteur and her co-rapporteur and thank the Committee as a whole for the work they have done.
In total, there are 68 amendments, six of which the Commission is able to adopt in their entirety, whilst it can adopt six in part and accept fifteen of them in principle. The bureau has been given a list of the amendments to which I have referred.
Thank you for your attention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples