Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-16-Speech-2-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041116.11.2-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for her outstanding work in this important and thought-provoking Directive on packaging waste. With the enlarged Europe we now find ourselves in a situation in which the common targets set to achieve harmonised legislation are particularly stringent for the newest Member States, and perhaps more so than ever before. In this sense, the proposal for a Directive on packaging and packaging waste is not exceptional.
The entry into force of this directive must be based on the guarantee of an internal market that is as viable as possible without any risk of distortions. This is easier said than done. The area of the internal market has expanded, and there are perhaps greater differences in the basic standards of Member States than ever before. The Commission’s proposal to lay down a common deadline of December 2012 for the new Member States regarding recovery and recycling targets under the packaging waste directive can be justified for market convergence to be achieved as soon as possible.
The proposal, however, is not without its problems. Consequently, it might well be prudent to take the long view and take basic standards in the new countries into greater consideration when setting the deadline. This way we will avoid any embarrassing repercussions that result from breaches of the conditions set and at the same time give priority to European convergence instead of market harmonisation which is now being discussed.
There has also been much discussion in connection with the reading of the Directive on the recycling and recovery of packaging waste. The ecological value of reuse is incontestable. It should be realised, however, that the environmental friendliness of reused packaging is not always directly justifiable. For short transportation journeys it certainly is preferable, but problems arise when each producer has its own packaging and internal distances in the European market are long. A good example is the transportation of fruit from the countries in the south to the Nordic countries, where the retransportation of reused packaging would not promote sustainable development at all. For example, cardboard boxes and cartons are often collected and recycled locally, to avoid a large number of unnecessary journeys. Promoting reused packaging whilst ignoring environmental considerations would be ecologically hypocritical. From the point of view of the report under discussion now, it would be good if the objective of coherent adaptation were not unnecessarily compromised by vague reuse systems of packaging at national level."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples