Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020902.6.1-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will, if I may, concentrate on the French approach to packaging, with which I am most familiar. In France, manufacturers have introduced a policy of reducing packaging at source by means of the procedure for certifying conformity with standard 13428 on prevention. Conformity with this standard is only mandatory in France and the United Kingdom. The amendments which I tabled in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy sought to extend this procedure to all the Member States. My colleagues did not include my proposal, but they were nonetheless sensitive to it, for Amendment No 16 to paragraph 5 of the provision in question states, quite rightly, that the Commission will before the end of 2004 evaluate the implementation of standard CEN EN 13428 on prevention
in all the Member States. I would draw the attention of my colleagues to the need to remove the change introduced by Amendment No 16 to Article 4(1)(a), for an arbitrary limit on the quantity of packaging does not take into account either economic growth or sociological development. Indeed, unit sales are increasing rapidly in a world where more and more people are living alone. It is through respect for standard CEN EN 13428 on prevention that the volume of packaging, its global tonnage, will be decreased, as is shown by the French example. That is precisely the challenge that we have to take up.
I would like to draw your attention once again to the dangers of adopting an environmental indicator for packaging, as proposed by the change introduced by Amendment No 16 to Article 4(3)(a). There is no need for this additional indicator for packaging, in that a standardisation tool already exists although it needs to be better enforced by manufacturers. Furthermore, its complex definition should take into account all the relevant criteria such as the nature of the product, the raw material requirements, the manufacturing processes and the collection and recycling systems available. The differences between the situations in the different countries have meant, I am sure, that the results are not representative.
Lastly, on the subject of re-use, this form of recycling should not be encouraged systematically, because the environmental impact of an item of re-usable packaging is not necessarily less harmful than that of an item of disposable packaging. A number of studies have confirmed this, particularly in the bottled drinks sector, and I will not go into the complaints lodged by the Commission against certain Member States who generated trade distortions by making the
return system mandatory.
I therefore call upon the Members to vote against Amendment No 17. We live in a society which functions according to a rhythm worthy of the machine in Chaplin’s ‘Modern Times’: produce, package, throw away and, increasingly, I am glad to say, recycle and re-use.
Let us not, however, lose sight of the fact that packaging is more than just an unfortunate side effect of our consumer society. It is not just there to look pretty or attract the customer: in the main, packaging serves an essential purpose. The solution to the problem facing us is to make this product subject to environmental requirements and to view it in the context of its entire life cycle."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples