Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-19-Speech-2-448"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070619.47.2-448"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, let me now turn to some of the key amendments in detail.
Amendments 1, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22 and 44 imply a significant extension of the scope of the proposal through the introduction of an export ban for cinnabar ore, calomel, mercury compounds and some mercury-containing products, as well as through the addition of an import ban. The Commission considers these amendments to be either unnecessary or not sufficiently justified. In the absence of mercury mining activities in the Community, there is no need for an export ban on cinnabar ore.
In a similar way, the Community has been a massive exporter of mercury, but not an importer. The impact assessment concluded that secondary sources of mercury – recycling and recovery – will cover the remaining demand within the Community. As mercury compounds and mercury-containing products are concerned, we would need a much more developed information base to justify such an extension. For the time being, it is not possible to estimate in a reliable way the possible impact of such a measure on industry and society, within the Community as well as in third countries. Using legislation to prevent a hypothetical problem would not be considered good practice in terms of better regulation.
Several amendments – numbers 12, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 45 – exclude the long-term storage or final disposal of metallic mercury, allowing for temporary storage only. It is worth noting that no environmentally and economically sound solution for the stabilisation of mercury prior to its disposal exists at present.
Amendments 6, 24 and 36 imply that preference should be given to the former mining site of Almadén for the storage of mercury. The Commission is well aware of the economic and social implications of the mine closure and the end of trading activities on the site. It does not, however, want to prescribe a single storage site to economic operators.
Amendments 8, 10, 13, 30 and 32 increase the administrative burden for industry, as well as for Member States and the Commission. The Commission has strong doubts about the potential effectiveness and benefits of these very detailed requirements as compared to their costs.
As regards the legal basis referred to in Amendment 2, the Commission proposal follows the line given by the European Court of Justice in its judgments in cases C-94/03 and C-178/03 concerning the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent for imports of chemicals. Our proposal is very similar in character, as it proposes trade-related measures as an environmental policy instrument. We cannot, therefore, support the amendment to the legal basis.
Amendments 17 and 34 calling for the introduction of an article on penalties are, however, acceptable to the Commission.
In summary, the Commission can support eight of the proposed 50 amendments fully, in part, or in principle. I shall give Parliament’s secretariat a list detailing the Commission’s position on the amendments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples