Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-375"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.15.2-375"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the waste mounting is still growing. Packaging only plays a minor, albeit visible, role in the environmental problem and is a source of irritation to many people. Packaging could be used as an example of a fresh approach to environmental problems. We must make sustainable development viable. We can adopt all the sound ideas from the sixth environmental action programme and apply these to the packaging policy.
Secondly, I would ask the Commission to promote re-use. For that purpose, situations must be identified where re-use is useful from an environmental point of view. That is connected with transport distances and the materials.
Thirdly, we must accord prevention a far more prominent role. For that purpose, I suggest making the manufacturers responsible. On the basis of a lifecycle analysis, manufacturers must demonstrate that they have chosen the best possible packaging for their product from an environmental point of view. The question is, of course, how this can be measured. The emission of CO2, the use of natural ancillary resources, harmful substances and residual waste must definitely form part of the equation. By adopting this approach, environmental costs can be charged on as part of the product, and that is the direction in which we need to be heading.
We must define clearer environmental parameters within which the market can go about its business and manufacturers can make choices. Manufacturer responsibility must be further detailed and the Commission must now take the stakeholders dialogue seriously. The interested parties from each sector, not only from industry but also consumers and representatives of environmental organisations, must be invited. This can lead to a refreshing approach which can be incorporated in clear guiding principles.
In addition to the three above-mentioned points, fellow MEPs have added a number of useful suggestions: clear responsibility not only for products but also for retailers; paying attention to the role of local councils and of consumers; and paying attention to planning and transport packaging. I welcome these suggestions with open arms.
The long-overdue revision of the packaging directive is an opportunity to demonstrate that the internal market can be reconciled with the environment, and we must not let this opportunity slip.
Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. We have had a packaging directive since 1994, which we can use as a basis to work from. The packaging directive has a dual purpose: to reduce the harmful environmental impact of packaging to a minimum and to guarantee the functioning of the internal market. It is important for Parliament to consider how the directive operates in practice, for we must learn from experience. Compliance with legislation is important, but the effectiveness of the legislation is at least as important.
In the field of compliance, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that nearly all Member States have implemented the directive well. Most objectives have been fulfilled, and Greece recently became the last Member State to inform the Commission of its measures and the results it had achieved. The Member States all did it their own way: Germany by means of the green dot system, the Netherlands by means of the voluntary agreements, etc.
However, there is also bad news, and I should like to mention four points. Firstly, the volume of packaging waste is still on the increase. Prevention of excessive packaging was an express objective, although it is not further specified in the directive. Only in four countries has the volume of packaging materials diminished. We clearly need to be more ambitious in this respect.
Secondly, the proportion of plastic in waste is growing. The directive prescribes a very modest target for plastic: at least 15% must be recycled. But even this minimum target has only been achieved by four countries, namely Germany, Austria, Belgium and Sweden. More than 50% of all products are wrapped in plastic. As it is difficult to recycle plastic, something must be done about this.
Thirdly, reliable and comparable data is lacking. The Member States all have their own way of collating data and it is unclear, for example, whether plastic waste that is exported is also included in the figures. Political decisions must be based on sound data, and the directive must be adapted accordingly.
To finish off, I should like to mention one major point: it is, in fact, unclear what the environmental effect is of all the collection, sorting, recycling and re-use. We think it is positive, and that is probably the case, but a sound assessment of environmental effects is required in order to continue to motivate consumers to separate their waste. Furthermore, the effect on the internal market, this directive’s second pillar, is equally vague.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is clearly time for a change. We need better reporting, better definitions and in addition to this, I would suggest a threefold approach.
First of all, we must devote more attention to recycling. The targets must be raised considerably and we must encourage the use of recycled materials. Special attention must be given to plastic. To date, plastic has had no positive residual value. In order to make the collecting and sorting of plastic profitable nevertheless, a levy is required, and I would ask the Commission once again to quickly present the revised proposal now."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples