Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-362"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.10.3-362"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo, for her work on the Commission’s proposal concerning EMAS.
The Commission is also very pleased to be able to approve Amendment 4 in principle, because it will help ensure that employees are more involved, something which has already been taken into account in the review of EMAS. The wording ought, however, to be changed to avoid extra demands being placed upon companies, particularly upon small and medium-sized companies.
There seems to be a general concern about small and medium-sized companies, which also manifests itself in EMAS. The Commission is therefore able to approve Amendment 19 (4) in principle, provided that it does not lead to the EMAS rules’ being watered down for small and medium-sized companies.
Because EMAS is a voluntary system, it is important that there should be information about it. The Commission is therefore able to approve Amendment 16 in principle, if it is extended to include all information and not only data.
The Commission is very pleased to see that the European Parliament itself is committed to applying EMAS and urges the other European institutions to do the same. However, EMAS’s area of application extends to include more than physical assets, something which must be clearly shown in Amendment 22, which the Commission is able to approve in principle.
Amendment 25 will contribute considerably to making the EMAS requirements clearer, and the Commission approves this change. A small addendum is required, however, so that the Commission is able, in a legally correct manner, to comply with the contractual conditions in the agreement that has been entered into with the European Standardisation Organisation.
Unanimity and openness are also important principles for EMAS. The Commission is able to approve Amendments 30 (1 and 3), 32 and 33 (2).
Where the other changes are concerned, I want briefly to explain why the Commission was unable to approve them. An important aspect of the proposal is the extension of EMAS’s area of application to include all sectors of trade and industry. Those amendments which relate only to the industrial sector cannot, therefore, be approved. These are Amendments 5, 6, 10, 17, 43, 44 and 45, according to which organisations must apply best available technology.
The Commission also considers it important that EMAS should be logically structured, easy to understand and sufficiently flexible to be able to be adapted for the various sectors affected. The Commission cannot, therefore, approve Amendments 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33 (1), 34, 35, 37, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49 and 50.
The additional benefits to the environment entailed by EMAS, compared with ISO14001, are a crucial aspect of the proposal. The Commission is unable, therefore, to support Amendments 13, 30 (2), 36, 38 and 46. Due to the introduction of longer intervals between verifications of the statements, these amendments would make it more difficult to obtain sight of, and to verify, the information concerning environmental performance.
Nor can the Commission accept Amendments 39 and 40, because the EMAS logo must be a sign of excellence for organisations, at the same time as it must not lead to confusion on the part of the public.
Before discussing the individual amendments, I want to touch upon three key issues, namely best available technology, the frequency with which the environmental statement is to be validated and the link between participation in EMAS and compliance with the requirements of compulsory environmental legislation.
Given the way the directives relating to public purchasing look today, Amendment 19 (1) cannot be approved.
The Commission is pleased to supply information to the European Parliament upon request, but is unable to approve Amendments 18 and 20 because there is a lack of resources for this purpose.
Finally, the Commission is unable to approve Amendment 24 relating to committee procedures because of the legal changes implemented following the decision on committee procedures, according to which a prescriptive committee is required.
The Commission is convinced that the European Parliament’s amendments have, in both readings, contributed greatly to this review and increased EMAS’s potential for helping improve the environmental performance of trade and industry throughout the Union.
The changes proposed by the European Parliament where best available technology is concerned should mean that all organisations which participate in EMAS should be forced to apply best available technology. The Commission agrees with the principle that all organisations registered to EMAS ought to try to apply best practice within their areas of activity and work as effectively as possible on issues of technology, materials and organisation. The concept of best available technology, which is expressly defined in the directive relating to coordinated measures for preventing and limiting pollution, is nonetheless only relevant to industry. This has also been noted by the European Parliament in some of its amendments.
In view of the fact that EMAS is now being opened to all economic sectors, the requirement that best available technology must be used is likely to mean in practice that many sectors will be prevented from participating in EMAS. For example, the European Parliament itself would not be able to participate because best available technology is not a concept which can be applied to public institutions. A requirement of this kind would also be a major obstacle for small and medium-sized companies, which are not covered by the directive relating to coordinated measures for preventing and limiting pollution. If the attempt were made to circumvent this derogation by means of EMAS, which is a voluntary system, this would probably mean that small and medium-sized companies would refrain from participating in EMAS.
When it comes to those amendments in which best available technology is confined to the area of application of the directive relating to coordinated measures for preventing and limiting pollution, it ought to be pointed out that it is not EMAS’s task to be an alternative way of ensuring that compulsory legislation is applied.
We all agree that it is important for organisations to comply with that environmental legislation which affects them. It might be said that it is a minimum requirement that environmental legislation should be respected. The purpose of EMAS is to help organisations to perform better and to exceed that minimum. The objective is not, however, to provide supervisory authorities with absolute proofs that an organisation which is EMAS-registered is complying with all current legislation in all situations. In view of EMAS’s systematic structure, organisations will clearly be well placed to comply with the environmental legislation. EMAS is, however, a voluntary system. If the European Parliament maintains its amendments, the basis of which is that compliance with environmental legislation must be guaranteed, EMAS’s role will be in danger of changing. EMAS will instead become a replacement for environmental verifications carried out by the Member States’ competent authorities. I am convinced that that is not the European Parliament’s intention.
How frequently is the environmental statement to be validated? The environmental statement is, of course, the visible public result of EMAS being implemented within an organisation. That report must therefore correspond to the expectations of those in the surrounding area. One such expectation is that the environmental statement should be reliable. The simplest way of building up confidence in the conclusions of the statement is to carry out regular, impartial verifications. An annual verification of the statement would therefore be more appropriate than a verification every third year, as in the majority of cases. I would emphasise that the common position is flexible in this respect. Account can, therefore, already be taken of special cases or special problems. I am therefore afraid that, by dispensing with the principle of annual reporting in its amendments, the European Parliament may damage EMAS’s credibility, which is a prerequisite if the new EMAS is to be successful.
Allow me to turn now to the individual amendments. The Commission has carefully examined the 50 amendments which have been tabled and is able to approve 11 of these. How credible EMAS is and how attractive it is to companies are two crucial considerations if EMAS is to function. The Commission is therefore delighted to be able to approve Amendments 1, 2 and 19 (3).
Another important question of which the Commission is also aware is that of how it may be ensured that EMAS is rolled out in the candidate States at an early stage. The Commission is therefore able to approve Amendment 3 in principle, provided that the wording is made clearer."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples