Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-10-Speech-4-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021010.1.4-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the climate change policy is an open process in which the Member States all share certain final objectives and recognise certain instruments which will make this process a reality. One of them is undoubtedly the trading of emissions allowances.
With regard to the voluntary nature of the system, the compromise reached by the rapporteur, with the opting out formula, seems to me the most appropriate in terms of assisting companies, without thereby jeopardising the efficient operation of the system.
In any event, I would reiterate that this directive should not be seen as a closed process, but as a direction we are beginning to take, which will have to be improved and updated in accordance with the circumstances of the Member States during its application.
The directive intended to harmonise this instrument has clearly demonstrated the significant political support for this initiative and has reaffirmed the European Union’s leadership in terms of the implementation of market instruments, which will undoubtedly change the way business is done in Europe.
It has also, however, revealed difficulties and, above all, question marks over certain specific points which are essential to guaranteeing the success of the system.
In this regard, the innovative nature of the mechanism, for the majority of Member States, means that in the majority of cases it is approached from the point of view of learning by doing
and that there are differences of opinion in terms of the best way to make its application a success.
The rapporteur, Mr Moreira Da Silva, has been flooded with amendments which reflect, on the one hand, the interest, but also the doubts, that this instrument gives rise to, and which have meant that he has had to make an enormous effort to bring together opinions on such vital aspects as the method for allocation and the voluntary nature of the system.
I believe that the approach would perhaps have been facilitated by maintaining a more differentiated treatment for the two periods into which the application of the directive is divided.
The first period should be treated above all as a pilot experiment, for road testing and adapting the market, from which the necessary conclusions will be drawn with a view to fuller and more rigorous application during the second phase. If we do not want the system to fail we must, during the first stage, provide the Member States with a degree of flexibility, which would allow them to confront, above all, the transaction costs without prejudice to the competitiveness of companies and the operation of the internal market.
In accordance with this objective, and for the sake of the future credibility of the system, I would argue that during the first stage the participation of companies should be promoted as much as possible, as well as flexibility in the adaptation of the States, which, as I have said, have transaction costs that differ considerably from one country to another.
As we say in my country, ‘slow and steady wins the race’. In this regard, I believe that the early decision on the adjudication system, bringing in a system of auctions, is not the best solution; above all, committing 15% for the second period. The conditions for this period should only be established in the light of experience and the results of the first phase."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples