Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-369"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.26.2-369"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for accepting my invitation for him to lead off in the debate tonight, because I have concerns about the declaration he has just put on the record and I will be reverting to it during the debate, as, I suspect, will other colleagues too.
However, the key point that I want to refer to again is the issue of stricter national measures. Important for encouraging an environmental race to the top was the agreement on the general principle that Member States can maintain or introduce stricter national measures in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. In the specific case of the existing national measures in Denmark and Austria, against which the Commission has been considering legal action, a safeguard clause was introduced which would allow the two Member States to keep their legislation until 31 December 2012. Both countries already have strict legislation on f-gases in place – since the 1970s in the case of Denmark – and they view it as a key measure in their policy mix to achieve their Kyoto climate change targets.
I believe the legislation now agreed and awaiting final sanction by our colleagues in this Parliament tomorrow strikes an equitable balance between environmental protection and single market concerns. It reaffirms the European Community’s commitment to reducing climate change and will provide a considerable stimulus to the development of new environmental technologies, thus contributing to our Lisbon Agenda knowledge economy goals. It will do so in a measured, sensible and proportionate way that recognises certain critical uses for these gases, which, we must not forget, can be useful in certain circumstances for the very reason that they are excellent insulators. Electrical or electronic switch gear, amongst other vital uses, will continue to use f-gases in a contained environment. There is no better or more suitable substitute in that case, and that must be the test.
The conciliation compromise was welcomed by the three institutions, by myself, by my European Parliament colleagues, by Minister Pröll, on behalf of the European Council, and by the Environment Commissioner, Mr Dimas. It was the only equitable and honourable outcome. To quote directly, Commissioner Dimas welcomed the agreement as ‘a clear and positive political signal’ but alluded to the fact that the Commission would later decide whether to issue a declaration on the record when the legislation was finally adopted, as it is scheduled to be tomorrow.
I should like to lay down a marker in relation to the declaration we have just heard from Commissioner Figeľ, speaking on behalf of Commissioner Dimas. In the laborious process of negotiating this legislation, it was the clear intention of the legislators – Parliament and the Council – to provide for the widest possible interpretation of the powers for environmental measures to be taken on the basis of a single market legal base. I strenuously reject any attempt by the Commission to construe the terms of that legal base so as to narrowly confine it to Article 95(4), which outlines a prior notification procedure. Such a declaration represents a misinterpretation of the outcome of conciliation, where there was a clear if implicit intention to allow stricter national measures on the basis of Article 95(10). While any declaration from the Commission in this context is non-binding, it may play a role in the purpose of interpretation of the ECJ on this subject, if perchance this legislation, which has already spanned two legislatures, gets a fourth reading at the Court in Luxembourg, as was my concern from the start.
Tonight I want to make it clear that the principal aims of this regulation – to cut our emissions of fluorinated gases – should be respected and adhered to in the fullest sense. I regret the fact that the Commission has not to date made the gesture of withdrawing its letter of formal notice to the Danish Government. I would urge Commissioner Figeľ to put on the record tonight the Commission’s intention of doing so as soon as possible.
The directive on air conditioning systems in motor vehicles was the second arm of the package of the two proposals to emerge from the Council’s first reading on the recommendation of my predecessor as rapporteur, Mr Goodwill. I welcome the pioneering decision to introduce a phased ban on fluorinated gases with a global warming potential of more than 150 times the potency of carbon dioxide in motor vehicles. This ban will apply to new vehicle types in 2011 and to all new vehicles in 2017. Bringing the measure into line with the long-established vehicle type approval system will also maintain the competitiveness and ensure the compliance of European car manufacturers. The risk threshold will eliminate the main air conditioning gas currently in use and it will allow less harmful gases to be used instead. In practice, most vehicle producers are likely to introduce carbon-dioxide-based systems. But the important point is that we are allowing the development of these new systems without being technology prescriptive and without infringing our obligations under the WTO.
This legislation is a fascinating case study for anyone interested in the institutional decision-making processes of the European Parliament. Firstly, I wish to thank all my colleagues, in particular the shadow rapporteur, Mrs Corbey, for the cooperation we had during a long and difficult enough debate at times.
Fluorinated gases were introduced in the nineties to replace the ozone-depleting CFCs and HCFCs. They are used in all sorts of applications, some essential, others less so: in insulating foams, in aerosols, in refrigeration and air conditioning systems; in fire protection equipment and switchgear and even in the soles of ‘air-tech’ jogging shoes, as well as, of course, in double-glazed windows. The list is very long.
As the debate on climate change developed following the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the harmful impact of these fluorinated gases, owing to their high global warming potential – GWP – came to be recognised as a major contributor – up to 5% and rising – to the greenhouse effect. Not only do these gases have high GWPs, the most potent – sulphur hexafluoride or SF6 – has a GWP of almost 24 000 times that of CO2, the most common greenhouse gas. They also have very long half-lives.
If no measures are taken, the Commission estimates that emissions of fluorinated gases will be 50% above the 1995 levels by 2010. Others would cite a much higher figure. With the measures agreed in this package of legislation, they will be reduced by more than 20% from the 1995 levels by 2012. Of the six greenhouse gases listed in the annex to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, three of them are fluorinated gases. In all, the current legislation encourages a reduction in emissions of 25 fluorinated gases – hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride – through containment, responsible use, recovery, destruction and disposal. The aim of the legislation is to enable Member States to meet their Kyoto targets by containing the leakage and restricting the use of fluorinated gases.
Whereas the original Commission draft proposal was in the form of one regulation with a single market legal base, namely Article 95, the Council reached a common position which took the form of two separate texts: a directive based on Article 95 and a regulation based on a dual legal base consisting of Articles 175 and 95. The rationale for the split of the Commission’s original proposal into two different texts, suggested by the European Parliament at its first reading, was to move all the requirements relating to emissions from air conditioning in motor vehicles from the proposed regulation to Framework Directive 70/156/EEC on the type-approval of motor vehicles. The proposed regulation would then focus on the remaining statutory applications. So, having chopped it in two and taken the highly dubious step of dividing the regulation between two legal bases – the main thrust being environment, with some ancillary provisions grounded on the single market legal base – the Council handed the baton back to Parliament. In the second reading in Parliament, there was no definitive resolution on the crucial vexed issue of the dual legal base of the regulation, which was retained.
My proposal, as rapporteur, to adopt a single environment-linked legal base as the only means of achieving legal certainty, did not obtain the required qualified majority. Amendments were adopted, however, which attempted to underline the fact that stricter national measures are allowed under single market measures, provided they are proportionate, non-discriminatory and not purely economic in nature. Article 176 of the Treaty explains this mechanism relating to the environment or the Article 175 laws.
This outcome created great uncertainty for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was the matter of general principle that, in the interests of promoting better, simpler and clearer legislation, the introduction of an unevenly weighted, dual legal basis represents a dangerous direction and precedent in European policy-making. Secondly, there is the ECJ’s consistent case-law according to which there should be a sole legal base which reflects the preponderant purpose or the centre of gravity of the legislation. The centre of gravity of this regulation is indisputably environmental protection, which would warrant an environment base – an approach of minimum harmonisation. Finally, there was the unresolved question as to whether the Member States that already have more ambitious legislation in force – notably Austria and Denmark – would be allowed to keep those measures, or whether the EU would force them to lower their environmental standards in an area of combating climate change at a time when there are already difficulties in meeting Kyoto targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Given the implacable divisions within the Council on this final issue of stricter national measures for certain Member States, a third reading in conciliation was inevitable.
After many exhaustive weeks of informatory preparatory work and meetings, the Conciliation Committee reached agreement on a joint text for the regulation concerning certain fluorinated greenhouse gases – f-gases – on 31 January 2006, which addressed the main points of disagreement between Parliament and the Council, which are namely: the possibility for the Member States to keep or introduce national measures stricter than those foreseen by the regulation; technical provisions regarding f-gas containment; reporting and review of the regulation; definition of placing on the market; cross-border transport or shipment of f-gases for recovery; labelling; notification of measures introducing further bans on f-gases; and the area of training and certification."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples