Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-12-Speech-2-364"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050412.33.2-364"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, it is certainly not presumptuous to say today that by 1 p.m. tomorrow we will have adopted the final version of this directive on the ecodesign requirements for Energy-Using Products.
A further point: information should also be given to consumers and SMEs, two essential links in the economic chain, which have a crucial role to play in distributing these ecological products on the market. Consumers should be informed about the environmental performance of the products, and SMEs should be given financial and technical help to manufacture these more environmentally friendly products.
I have one final point, Mr Piebalgs, before I conclude. These are very early days as far as integrating the product life-cycle approach into company policy is concerned. We will therefore – and this is our opinion – need more than a Mr Ecodesign in your services if we are to make this project a success, and we have written to you stating this.
I will conclude, Madam President, by thanking – I think it is important to do so – the Council and in particular the Luxembourg Presidency. I should also like to thank the Commission for being a very wise arbitrator and all of my shadow rapporteurs, whose collaboration has been very valuable throughout these last 18 months. They have managed to keep Parliament united so that we could reach, or forge, this agreement, which puts the three pillars, the environmental, economic and social pillars, of sustainable development on an equal footing.
This will give the European Union a new tool to promote innovation and protect the environment, because applying ecodesign requirements to domestic or construction products is the future. Over 80% of environmental pollution is caused during the manufacturing phase. It is therefore essential to act at the source, where the possibilities for technical improvements are the greatest.
That is why Parliament has been in favour of this Commission proposal from the outset, and there are at least two reasons for this. The first is the very broad scope of application of the framework directive. It covers a wide range of products, that together are responsible for around 40% of CO2 emissions. These range from refrigerators to boilers and include computers, lights, lawnmower engines, and many more. All of the energy sources are covered and all of the sectors included.
The text’s flexibility is the second reason. It seeks to promote the ecodesign approach within companies by means of voluntary agreements, but also with legislation if this self-regulation is not possible or when it has failed.
We therefore share, Commissioner, a desire to promote ecodesign, with a precise objective in mind: to improve the ecological quality of products without adversely affecting their working quality. There is of course no point in having a quieter washing machine if it consumes twice as much electricity or water, for example. That is why this directive is rightly based on an integrated approach, which consists of assessing the product from the cradle to the grave, because every product has an impact on the environment at some stage in its life cycle.
This multi-criteria and multi-stage environmental balance sheet must not, however, prevent us, as legislators, from setting ourselves one or more priorities, and that is clearly what we did when we said that energy efficiency was a priority thematic area in the fight against climate change. We are making a vital contribution to the efforts being made to respect the Kyoto target here. Indeed, the Commission puts the reduction that we could achieve by 2010 thanks to this directive at almost 200 million tonnes of CO2.
That brings me to the agreement that we concluded last Monday after two marathon meetings with the Luxembourg Presidency, obviously in full cooperation with your services. This agreement has two major advantages, the first – not insignificant for the purses of our fellow citizens – being that we will avoid an expensive conciliation. The second, more fundamentally, is the fact that we now have a balanced compromise, which improves the Council’s common position on the essential points. To start with, as far as energy efficiency is concerned, it is provided that, in the next 24 months, even before the first work plan is drawn up, the Commission, after consulting the Consultation Forum, will adopt implementing measures for the categories of products where the potential for CO2 reductions is greatest, and as a priority for the seven categories of products cited in the European Climate Change Programme.
Market surveillance is also a top priority. Since this directive seeks to extend CE marking to Energy-Using Products that comply with ecodesign requirements, it is important to have effective product checks throughout the Union. The agreement now includes a clear definition of the notion of producer as well as a very clear article on the responsibilities of the importer. Furthermore, it provides for checks on all the commercial players in the chain, which have to be able to justify by means of a declaration of conformity that any product sold in Europe meets the ambitious energy efficiency criteria that we want to put in place. Of course all of these measures have just one objective: to sanitise the market and protect consumers. It is now up to the Member States to act quickly and effectively so as to pursue the bad boys and free riders and to defend European industry.
A very brief comment on comitology: I welcome the fact that the Council has taken up our idea, expressed in Article 14, of setting up a Consultation Forum, whose powers are beefed up by this draft recommendation. This will make it possible for industry and the NGOs to monitor the situation carefully when it proves necessary to put implementing measures in place."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples