Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.9.2-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, key to the 1994 directive were targets for Member States for packaging recovery and recycling, to be set initially for a five-year phase and thereafter to be reviewed for subsequent five-year phases – and hence we are here today. I support the objective of this directive to minimise the impact of packaging and packaging waste, as long as the costs are proportionate to the environmental benefits. It is often forgotten that packaging waste is only a small proportion of total landfill.
The key concern in relation to the amendments to this directive is the deadline for achieving compliance with the proposed higher recovery and recycling targets. The deadline, or 'time-line', should be realistic, proportionate and achievable in line with best practice. This will allow infrastructure and recycling capacity to be built up at a pace that ensures progress with the objectives of the directive whilst not imposing excessive or disproportionate costs.
I wish to draw attention to the derogation that sets the same recovery and recycling targets as for the other twelve Member States, but allows Ireland, Greece and Portugal longer to achieve them. I urge support for the common position, which sets an accepted deadline of 2012. There is an assumption that all Member States should ultimately reach the same recovery and recycling rates, irrespective of size, geography or infrastructure. It is not a question of having done nothing alone. Yes, far more could be done, but in Ireland's case we have a population of less than four million and too small a market to sustain a packaging manufacturing infrastructure. We import 75% of our packaged goods.
There is one paper recycler, little plastics recycling, no metal recyclers and the only glass recycler in the country has recently closed down. Therefore we are at a permanent geographical and structural disadvantage. To comply with this directive we must ship packaging waste overseas or build more reprocessing facilities and export the empty packaging, which is uneconomic. The cost will not be proportional to the environmental benefit.
I underline what Ms Jackson said to us, on the Commission's recent communication on the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, published in May 2003. From an environmental point of view it is more important to optimise collection and recycling in the Community as a whole, rather than to consider whether this takes place in a particular Member State. This should be reflected in the overall recycling target at Community level. In the Commissioner's own words, could she please explain how this squares with what we have here today?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples