Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-28-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040128.10.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are on the verge of giving our approval to the revision of the Directive on packaging and packaging waste. On 4 December, Parliament’s delegation to the Conciliation Committee approved the agreement reached with the Council by a large majority. As the rapporteur, I am very pleased with this, and I shall explain briefly why.
All things considered, it is my opinion that our Parliament can be very pleased with this result, and, indeed, I recommend that everyone vote in favour of the agreement.
Tomorrow’s vote brings the revision of the Directive on packaging and packaging waste to an end, but not the debate on the wider context of recycling, waste prevention and the use of natural resources. The debate has already begun in this House, with the discussion on the thematic strategies presented by the Commission. This agreement on the Directive on packaging and packaging waste points the way towards a new scheme in legislation. Parliament wanted to see greater emphasis on the environmental impact of the legislation and a flexible way of working. In an enlarged, more diverse Union, it will no longer be possible for all 25 Member States to set the same targets for recycling and recovery. Our debates on eco-efficiency at first reading and on the economic cost at second reading lead us almost inescapably to the conclusion that countries’ optimum recycling percentages can differ substantially, and ultimately we must go down that path, too. To do so, however, we do have to set clear recycling aims first of all; indeed, that is ultimately the objective of this legislation.
Another aim of this legislation is sustainable development, a concept to which we need to give flesh and blood. Today, with the revised Directive, we are taking a step towards the modernisation of packaging policy. A packaging environment indicator has the potential to stimulate the use of more sustainable packaging. In the longer term, packaging does not need to be an environmental problem, but could contribute to sustainable development. Constant innovation is the best guarantee of maintaining employment in the packaging sector, and I hope that the revision of the Directive on packaging and packaging waste makes a small contribution to this.
By way of conclusion, I should like to express my warm thanks to all the groups for their cooperation, and to say a word of thanks to the excellent conciliation team under the extremely capable leadership of Vice-President Imbeni.
There were two major points at issue and five minor ones. I shall begin with the minor points: firstly, the definition of packaging. I am sure you remember vividly the lobby and the debate on flower pots, CD cases, mascara containers and make-up pots. Parliament wanted to avoid a continuation of the debate on flower pots. The solution found is pragmatic: new products are not entered in the annexes, but the Commission is asked to give priority to examining, where necessary, those products that are the subject of legal controversy: CD cases, flower pots, toilet rolls and suchlike. The Council has accepted the substance of Parliament’s amendment of the basic definition of packaging.
The second point concerned prevention, which this House saw as important. The environmental impact of packaging must be minimised. The introduction of a packaging environment indicator was the main feature of this. Parliament wants to encourage pilot projects, and its second reading amendment has been accepted almost in its entirety. This will undoubtedly be elaborated on in the debate on the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling that is already under way.
The third point relates to the report. The Council has accepted Parliament’s amendment concerning the scope of the Commission’s report on the implementation of the Directive almost in its entirety.
The fourth point concerns voluntary agreements. The possibility of reducing the transposition of certain provisions by means of agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned has been fully accepted by the Council. This point is very important as far as the Netherlands, among others, is concerned.
The last of the minor points concerns the deadlines. The existing Directive on packaging and packaging waste provides for a limited postponement for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Parliament was prepared to grant a postponement from 2008 to 2010, the Council preferred 2012, and we agreed on 2011.
The two more difficult points concerned the amendment regarding the new Member States, and the recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Firstly, regarding the new Member States, the issue was who should establish the deadlines for these countries. Parliament wanted the Commission to present a proposal on which Parliament and the Council would then take a decision. The Council preferred to deal with this issue by means of a declaration on bilateral agreements with each acceding country on the basis of Article 57 of the Accession Treaty. Parliament strongly defended its second reading position. The result was the inclusion of a clearly worded recital in the Directive: this contains the derogation requests by the countries in question, and the final decision will be made in accordance with the appropriate legal procedures. From the point of view of Parliament, this signifies a considerable improvement on the original position of the Council.
A particularly difficult problem concerned the implications of recent judgments of the Court of Justice for the Directive’s recovery targets. The Court’s interpretation of the concept of ‘recovery’ in recent judgments had been the subject of considerable debate. In these judgments, the Court of Justice concluded that waste incineration with energy recovery does not constitute recovery if that is not the main purpose of the operation, with the result that some Member States could unexpectedly find themselves in contravention of the Directive, either now or in the future.
Views differed as to how to deal with the matter from a procedural point of view. Indeed, the implications of the judgments had not been addressed in either the common position or in second reading amendments by Parliament. The compromise solution finally found was to modify the relevant parts of the text of the original Directive. This made it clear that waste incinerated at incineration plants with energy recovery can count towards the targets of the Directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples