Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-314"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.11.2-314"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the report by my colleague, Mr Florenz, is one of the most important achievements this parliamentary term from Parliament’s point of view.
Firstly, producers are now to be made responsible for the complete life cycles of the equipment they sell. The unambiguous application of individual producer liability is something that I, as the person who originally proposed the amendment, am especially glad about. This is precisely the way we can ensure that product design takes account of the environment and therefore the directive’s whole viability. If producers know they are the ones that have to pay when equipment reaches the end of its life cycle, they will minimise costs beforehand and ensure that as little waste as possible is created and that that small amount has maximum potential for recycling. Parliament’s wish to prevent anyone from getting a ‘free ride’ has also been taken into consideration in a fair way
by demanding that producers should provide a guarantee to cover costs when products are released for sale.
Secondly, we have to mention our rapporteur’s splendid solution regarding the obligation to recycle, something that has been fully achieved, but regarding which there has to be evidence of a rate of four kilograms of waste per inhabitant a year. Thus, not a gram of waste is to remain without someone taking responsibility for it, although for various practical reasons – and this was the compromise that was finally reached during conciliation – the obligation regarding evidence itself is in respect of just 4 kilograms. The entire chain, therefore – producers, importers, dealers, consumers, organisers of waste disposal and recycling, and the authorities – will each be in a responsible position, but the balance of responsibility among them that has been found is excellent. Furthermore, market mechanisms have been used just as they should: there will be positive incentives to encourage more ecological behaviour.
Unfortunately, it has to be said that the position taken by the Council right up to the last moment to solve the question of costs would not have worked in this way and it would not have had such an ecological impact, although it might have been tempting for Member States in terms of taxation.
I hope that the Member States also find a fair solution regarding how collection facilities are organised. In so far as it is possible, it will be the responsibility of the local authorities, and the producer’s liability for costs starts at the collection point.
I believe that we have found an excellent model in the WEEE Directive, which, hopefully soon, we will be able to apply to many other product groups. When the Commission is drafting proposals on these may it be encouraged by the unanimous support we have had for the proposal now before us from environmental and consumer organisations, as well as the industry itself."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples