Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-172"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.10.1-172"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I should like to thank the Committee on the Environment and especially the rapporteur, Mrs Hulthén, for its careful consideration of the common position.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 18 and 34 on the possible use of HCFCs as a replacement to halons in fire fighting. Expanding it is unnecessary and limiting it is of little, if any, practical consequence. Such changes would affect a crucial part of the common position compromise.
Amendment No 28 relates to Article 5 and bans the use of CFCs and HCFCs as a processing agent immediately in a specific application. The Commission cannot accept this amendment because there is a need to provide for transitional time for phase-out. Nor can the Commission accept Amendment No 19 banning sales of used HCFC-containing equipment within five years after the respective use ban as it would increase the probability of illegal dumping and venting of HCFCs to the atmosphere.
While the Commission has sympathy for Amendment No 20 that would ban the production of HCFC-containing products for export over the three years after respective domestic use ban, we have to maintain the balance between environmental desirability and the risk that manufacturing would relocate elsewhere. The Commission cannot therefore accept it.
Similarly, while we support the intention of Amendment No 21, it would be incompatible with the exemption in Article 5(6) for specific cases and therefore cannot be accepted. Furthermore, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 22 as exemptions would in any case be granted in full consultation with Member States, and thus it cannot accept it.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment No 30 which seeks to expand the possibilities to grant exemptions for substances that have already been phased out. It is important to send the unambiguous message that when a substance is phased out no further exemptions should be allowed except those that qualify as essential uses.
Finally, may I thank Parliament for its work and careful consideration of the common position.
Many of the amendments are designed to accelerate the phase-out schedules for HCFCs and methyl bromide, an objective which the Commission certainly shares in the light of their significant and increasing contribution to ozone depletion.
European SMEs which are leading in the development of the alternatives have proved that rapid phase-out of remaining ozone depleting substances promotes sustainable industries and additional ozone layer protection.
Complex negotiations in the Council led to the adoption of an acceptable common position last February. Its quick adoption is the Commission's priority. The Commission cannot go as fast as it would like in some issues, as we are rapidly approaching some of the proposed phase-out dates. It is important to avoid the introduction of the new ozone depleting substances. Amendment No 27 would introduce an expedited procedure for adding new ozone depleting substances to the regulation, which would be useful in deferring unwise investments while benefiting the ozone layer. The Commission can therefore accept this amendment in principle.
Amendment No 9 is also acceptable since it allows time-limited extensions for the use of very small quantities of CFCs in a specialised type of medical devices for pain relief. Other amendments that the Commission accepts, either totally, in principle or in part, are Amendments Nos 1, 4, 11, 12, 15, 17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32 and 35. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2 and 10 as they would bring forward the first cuts in production and use of methylbromide to unrealistically early dates – 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2001 respectively. This would cause procedural difficulties and problems for farmers.
Similarly, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 3 which would remove any exemptions beyond 2006. This would penalise individual farmers or certain crops disproportionally.
Strict controls on HCFC production and trade with non-parties to the Montreal Protocol are part of the Community ozone policy. Two weeks ago, in the Beijing meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol, the Community succeeded in introducing such measures into the Protocol. However, excessively harsh measures going beyond the common position could shift the market to overseas producers.
Amendments Nos 5, 6, 7, 8 and 23 advancing the phase-out schedule and imposing an immediate trade ban cannot therefore be accepted.
There are several amendments that bring forward the controls on HCFC uses. The current position represents a careful balance between what is environmentally desirable, technically feasible and economically achievable. The Commission cannot, therefore, accept Amendments Nos 13, 14 and 16 which would tighten the deadlines further for the phasing out of HCFC use in solvents, air conditioning and polyurethane foams. This could bring increased problems and lead to cash flow problems for companies."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Liikanen (UEN )"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples