Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-264"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.9.2-264"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
I thank Ms Corbey for her work as rapporteur on this subject. I know she has done a very serious job and looked at this in depth.
Of the 32 amendments the Commission can accept 20 amendments in full, in part, or in principle. A list of the amendments concerned has been handed over separately.
In 1999 a total amount of 63.5 million tonnes of packaging waste was generated in the European Union. This corresponds to around 17% of municipal solid waste and 3% of the total waste generation by weight.
The packaging and packaging waste directive has made the collection and recycling of packaging waste a normal activity in all EU Member States, increasingly so also in the accession countries. In this way the directive has helped to reduce environmental impacts and to strengthen the internal market for packaging and packaging waste.
This revision builds on this success. I am very pleased that the European Parliament has, since the first reading, given clear support for our proposal to more than double the minimum recycling targets and to further increase the recovery target. It seems that there is now widespread agreement on the levels of the targets. The key remaining question is whether the implementation deadline will be 2008, as in the common position, or whether an earlier date should be set. In my view deadlines should be both realistic and ambitious. It will also be important to give Greece, Ireland and Portugal – Member States already granted later target dates under current legislation – a reasonable time to adapt to the new targets. This also applies to the accession states. I intend to propose deadlines for these countries before the end of this year.
I am also pleased that Parliament largely agrees that other aspects – in particular, prevention and re-use – should be further studied before new decisions are taken. However, the need for further analysis also applies to the new obligation referred to in the first part of Amendment No 7. This new obligation to minimise the environmental impact of packaging risks duplicating the existing essential requirements and facing the same problems in regard to enforcement.
I fully understand the concerns of Parliament regarding exports for recycling. I agree that we should make sure that recycling in non-EU countries should only count for our targets if it is done properly. However, controls and paperwork should be focused on where they are really needed. I do not see any reason why this should apply to materials such as metals, paper and glass. These materials are part of a functioning, internal, international market. I doubt that we need written proof of the recycling of each exported batch.
It would also seem strange to me to apply stricter controls on exports of packaging waste than the provisions on waste electrical and electronic equipment, which we decided just a few months ago.
There seems to be a great deal of concern in Parliament – as we just heard from the rapporteur – about the effect of the packaging directive on ceramics packaging. Let me be clear that nothing in the directive obliges Member States to set up recycling systems for this type of packaging. Excluding ceramics from the scope of the packaging directive raises the question of why we should exclude ceramics and not other, similar packaging types. It also gives Member States the freedom to take any measure on ceramics packaging, as long as it is within the framework of the Treaty. Therefore I believe it is better to ask the Technical Committee to solve any possible implementation problems, rather than excluding ceramics from the scope of the directive.
I know that flower pots, self-adhesive labels and related issues are important for the industries concerned. Therefore they merit a proper discussion. Conciliation is, in my view, not the right framework for such a discussion. This is a job for detailed work by the experts in the Technical Committee."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples