Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-16-Speech-2-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041116.11.2-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this evening, we are once again discussing packaging. Commissioner Wallström, this being your last debate as Commissioner for the Environment, I should like to congratulate you on your sterling work over the past five years, your significant personal involvement and commitment, and to thank you for the good cooperation which you have established with this House. You have been an excellent Environment Commissioner.
The last thing we need is to start reverting to being a throwaway society, not, incidentally, that the public appreciate that anyway, because many people consider discarding anything a waste, a waste of a bottle, a can or the material. Tomorrow, this Parliament will also be discussing the Kok report on the implementation of the Lisbon strategy. Mr Wim Kok has concluded that the pursuit of a sustainable society, one in which man, the environment and the market are in harmony, has, although commendable, not been given due prominence, and that this is due to a lack of political will. He is not saying, though, that we should throw out the Lisbon strategy altogether, and I agree with him. We must set to it and demonstrate political will.
In all its modesty, this packaging dossier will provide you with the opportunity of showing your political will tomorrow. Not only can we speak out in the resolution about what is yet to be done, we can also speak out in favour of a concrete, sustainable supplement to the Packaging Directive.
Ladies and gentlemen, I urge all of you to nail your colours to the mast tomorrow. The choice is yours: a voice for a Europe that is striving towards a sustainable society and acts accordingly, or a voice for a Europe that is full of fine words about sustainable development and the Lisbon strategy, but lacks the energy or moral fibre to back these up with vigour.
Commissioner Wallström, communication is your new key task in the European Commission. You have said that your intention is to continue to spread and promote the message of sustainable development. You have my heartfelt support in this, and I wish you much success in this respect. I hope that after the vote on the Packaging Directive tomorrow, you will be able to point out to the press that Europe not only speaks about sustainability, it also acts on it.
This evening, we are discussing the leftovers
of the revision of the Packaging Directive. The ten new countries need clear objectives. Recycling and reuse cannot be announced out of the blue from the capital or from Brussels. It takes time to persuade people to set up systems. That is why it seems best to retain the dates proposed by the new Member States themselves. Needless to say, I also checked out how the Members from the new countries felt about this, and this has not produced any other viewpoints. Hence my proposal for Amendment No 3.
I agree with the Commission that we need to finalise this issue as quickly as possible and that we must try to create political clarity for the new Member States at the earliest opportunity.
Mr President, Commissioner, the Packaging Directive is due for a general overhaul. One of the crucial points is the constant tension between, on the one hand, maintaining the internal market and, on the other hand, protecting the environment. In a number of cases, this has led to ambiguity and to long drawn-out procedures. Clarity must be created, for the sake of both manufacturers and consumers. On the basis of the Packaging Directive, which also covers the environment, the European Commission has called into question a number of reuse systems in Europe. Commissioner, that is very disappointing in my view and I have decided to focus on this revision.
In Amendment No 4, on behalf of my group, I have suggested including in the directive the possibility of Member States encouraging the reuse of packaging material. Member States can introduce new systems for the reuse of packaging material or, alternatively, maintain existing systems if these yield an environmental advantage compared to recycling or recovery from packaging material. This amendment, which is also a recital, does not say that Member States
encourage reuse. It states that Member States can promote reuse, provided that – and that is important – that is done in compliance with the Treaty and does not disrupt the internal market.
You said, Commissioner, that you could accept this amendment, and I understand that it does not meet with any great resistance in the Council either. It is therefore beyond me that even this has provoked objections among the Members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and within the European packaging industry. The reaction from the PPE-DE and the industry is simply bewildering if we stop and think about the state of the environment and nature.
The follow-up report to the recently-published report by the Club of Rome concludes that the limits of sustainable development are in sight. If we are not careful with natural resources, such as water and energy, the two worlds, the world of nature and the world of human civilisation, will clash. We have not sufficiently succeeded in integrating sustainable development in our production and in our patterns of consumption. Clearly, we need to make a complete change. The reuse of materials and carefulness with natural resources are vitally important. That too is the background to Amendment No 4.
A packaging industry which itself objects to the possibility of encouraging reuse within the borders of the internal market is not facing the future. By 2010, European industry must be the world’s most competitive economy. This requires businesses that can assess social reality. It requires businesses that can turn sustainability into a trademark, businesses that realise that citizens and consumers are worried about the future of the planet and are prepared to make their contribution.
Industry is right, of course, in saying that reuse should not be a front for protectionism. Reuse may not be an excuse for thwarting foreign suppliers. Similarly, reuse is not in all cases better for the environment, and there is no reason for making reuse compulsory. Reuse does fulfil an important role, though, that being persuading people that we need to be careful with nature and with materials."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples