Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-06-Speech-3-380"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060906.24.3-380"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Fraga Estévez, and everyone who has spoken tonight.
Although not in agreement on all aspects, the Commission and Parliament are on the same wavelength as regards moving towards adopting decisions based on tariff assessments and broad consultations. I would underline to the last speaker, Mr Nicholson, that the debate tonight fully reflects the way the Commission wanted to involve Parliament before entering the legislative phase of what needs to be done on eco-labelling. Obviously, when it comes to that legislative phase, the involvement of Parliament will be a top priority prior to finalisation of the whole process relating to the eco-labelling scheme.
Let me refer to some specific points that were raised during the debate. Most of the existing schemes are in effect relatively consistent and are not misleading. The Commission’s preferred option for establishing minimum criteria for eco-labelling schemes will, however, bring order to the system, where necessary, and increase consumer confidence. We will also be ensuring better quality products and providing for transparency and the traceability of products on the market.
On the point raised by various speakers on the preference for a single eco-labelling scheme, it is still early to take a definitive and final decision. The Commission has, however, indicated its preferred option and I should underline that the Economic and Social Committee, the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Agriculture, and most industry and stakeholders’ representatives support that option. However, although a preference for Option 3
the Commission’s preferred option
which is to say the setting of minimum criteria, seems to be emerging, no agreement has yet been reached between Member States at Council level.
That is why I underline the fact that it is still too early to take a firm and definitive stand on how to proceed. However, this debate has certainly helped to better inform us on Parliament’s position and on that of its various Members.
On the issue of the harvesting of fisheries resources in a sustainable way, I wish to refer to the Commission’s communication, which underlines that the aim of the policy on eco-labelling for fish and fisheries products is based on the concept of sustainable fishing. The communications spells out that eco-labelling schemes, if based on clearly-defined criteria and appropriate indicators, can assist in both monitoring the progress made on sustainability in fishing and in raising public awareness on sustainability issues. It goes on to make reference to sustainable exploitation with regard to Article 3(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.
Regarding the other points raised, I agree with the comments on the importance of independent accreditation and certification. Guarantees in this area are provided by ISO standards and procedures. However, the Commission has no direct competence to enforce those norms.
I also agree with the comments made to the effect that eco-labelling needs to be clear and clearly understandable so that it is easily understood by consumers. Moreover, eco-labels offer the possibility of helping to combat IUU fishing and of promoting proof with regard to sustainable fishing practices.
By virtue of the whole exercise undertaken, we will be increasing awareness among the general public. FAO criteria will be taken into account when it comes to laying the basis of eco-labelling schemes. Moreover, the schemes must not be cumbersome to SMEs, or so complex that they cannot be effectively implemented by stakeholders."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples