Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-248"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.11.2-248"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as you just said, this is the second reading for the directive on the awarding of the eco-label. The European eco-label is, it has to be said, a product of the internal market. Its function, partly in response to the increasing flow of products across borders, is to label products and services which have a high level of environmental compatibility.
In my estimation it would be nonsensical and contrary to the spirit of subsidiarity to abolish these proven labels in favour of an as yet unestablished European label. Our approach should be different. We must ensure that the co-existence of national and European labels is coordinated and in this regard the working plan provided for in the common position, which we have supplemented in various respects, but which I think will meet with approval, is extremely important.
The eco-label regulation treads the fine line between economic and ecological interests, one group wanting above all to enforce stringent environmental requirements, the other with an eye on the marketing aspect of the label. Both groups, however, have one thing in common: they want the eco-label to succeed. I believe that the regulation which we are considering today has found a solid compromise between the interests of all the groups involved and I am convinced that the constructive proposals of our House will also be acceptable to the Council and make for a highly successful European eco-label.
Its function, on the one hand, is to provide information to consumers from one country to the next and, on the other, to increase awareness within industry and among citizens to recognise and promote environmental issues. And this is of major importance when it comes to the daily shopping trip.
I am of the opinion that the meaningfulness of a European label which is tailored to the European internal market is beyond dispute. However, it is often a long road from the conception of a good idea to its practical implementation.
This is precisely the case with the eco-label whose main claim to fame at present is, unfortunately, its virtual anonymity in most States. I think that only a very small minority of citizens have ever actually seen it and for this reason my report has paid greatest attention to the wholly inadequate preparations for the label.
What are the weaknesses in the current eco-label regulation which have given rise to today’s unsatisfactory situation? I think that a key problem lies in the cost structure of the label. The test procedures which companies and their products must go through in order to obtain the label are long and costly. We are therefore advocating that the stipulation of testing requirements should look to keep test costs to an absolute minimum, although this must obviously not be misinterpreted as a qualitative watering down of testing requirements.
As well as the cost of test procedures, the on-going fees which must be paid to the European eco-label system are also highly significant. Here, too, we envisage a reduction in costs for SMEs, firms in developing countries and enterprises involved in other aspects of European or international environmental legislation. In this regard, I should cite, for example, EMAS and ISO 14001.
In addition to a reduction in costs for certain enterprises, the report also envisages a maximum fee. In this we are following the example of almost all the national labelling systems, which also have this ceiling. The purpose of this approach is to make the labelling system equally attractive to large consumer goods manufacturers and service providers. Let me make something perfectly clear at this point: this is not a present to the large multinationals, as is being mooted in some quarters, but an important step towards the label exerting a wide influence in the long term.
We must also clearly understand that without a certain amount of financial impetus for the European label we will not make any headway. In my opinion, we should take on the responsibility for this financing.
Another important point in this second reading is the regulation of the relationship between the national eco-label and the European equivalent. At first reading we were still advocating the gradual abolition of national labels in favour of the European eco-label; it is not without good reason that we have abandoned this position. In some States national labels are well established and enjoy public recognition. This is the case, for example, as regards the Nordic Swan in Scandinavia and the Blue Angel in Germany."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples