Agreement is thrashed out via conciliation procedure

Date: 26/10/1995

THE trials and tribulations of the EU's directive on packaging and packaging waste is an excellent illustration of the workings of the co-decision or legislative conciliation system introduced under the Maastricht Treaty.

Having bounced around between the institutions for several months, the much-disputed proposal setting minimum recovery and recycling targets for packaging material was finally agreed at last December's meeting of EU environment ministers, following a conciliation meeting between parliamentarians and member state representatives in November.

The lengthy countdown to final agreement began in July 1993, when the Commission rejected the European Parliament's proposed amendments, forcing the Belgian presidency to come forward with a new compromise in October.

Ministers failed to reach a common position at their scheduled meeting on 2/3 December after disagreement over targets for recovery of packaging material, but succeeded at an extraordinary session on 13 December.

The ball was then in the court of parliamentary rapporteur Luigi Vertemati, who had to work rapidly to get his suggested amendments through the environment committee in time for the Parliament's May plenary session. Only an absolute majority - then 260 votes - in the Parliament could force amendments to the common position.

Much to Vertemati's disappointment, sufficient votes could only be gathered for the more minor proposals for amendments - 19 in total. None of the more controversial ideas received enough support to force the Council of Ministers to radically revise its position.

Rather than becoming involved in the conciliation process over relatively minor amendments, the Commission agreed in June to accept all 19 amendments.

At this point, ministers had the choice of either accepting the amendments or triggering the conciliation process and entering into negotiations with the Parliament.

When Belgium blocked the adoption of the directive at the June Council meeting because it feared an adverse effect on domestic eco-tax legislation, other member states had either to talk the Belgians into a change of heart or send the measure to conciliation. Under Maastricht, Council negotiations could be extended for one month after the normal deadline with the Parliament's consent.

When Belgium could not be talked round, the question went to conciliation, leaving it up to 15 MEPs to thrash out a deal with a representative of each member state.

At October's first conciliation meeting, Parliament asked the member states to look at the proposed amendments which had not received an overall majority in Parliament. This raised considerable doubt about the correct interpretation of Maastricht concerning exactly which amendments could be raised in conciliation.

An inter-institutional compromise was finally reached at November's conciliation session, which then had to be confirmed by the next full parliamentary session before being adopted formally by ministers. The key to the deal was a change to arrangements covering the introduction of eco-taxes.