Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.8.2-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, water will be one of the main environmental and world issues of the twenty-first century. Climate change, global resources, river quality and groundwater aquifer quality are major challenges which threaten our common future. We will either be able to restore water quality to suit the planet’s ecosystem or we will experience a whole range of adverse events which will threaten the development of certain regions, the living conditions of the inhabitants of other regions and even, more fundamentally, the global balance.
To support this statement, I would point to an excellent report drafted by our colleague, Mário Soares, in the international bodies on the state of the seas and oceans. When talking about climate change, we have rightly referred to the greenhouse effect and the state of the atmosphere. Yet we also know that the deterioration of the oceans will significantly destabilise whole areas of our planet.
Europe must therefore lead by example to some extent, both because it must promote a certain development model and because it is itself facing serious problems of pollution and deterioration of its waters, including its groundwater, surface waters and seas.
Furthermore, Europe has signed international conventions, in particular the OSPAR Convention in which it made certain commitments. In this it said that in a few years’ time we must have stopped dumping pollution and halted the increase of pollution and we must have reached a near zero level of toxic and dangerous substances. Despite having signed these international agreements, this directive and the specific policies in the field reveal that Europe cannot achieve the objectives set or must defer these for so long that the very credibility of its signature of these international conventions is threatened. This is why in the debate on the framework directive on water policy, the European Parliament has since the first reading demanded coherence between the framework directive and the international objectives, particularly with regard to respect for OSPAR. This convergence must be effective and specific and must commit us to action.
The European Union’s water policy is not starting from zero. Many directives have already been adopted. Furthermore, the Commission wants to make these directives more understandable and more compatible with each other and to give them clearer objectives. The preparation of this framework directive is therefore prompted by a desire for rationalisation. However, at first reading this House insisted that the current directive should not only be compatible with the commitments made, like OSPAR, but should allow us to reverse the course of affairs. For despite these directives and frequent declarations about the effort which must be made in terms of water protection, when we look at the state of the environment in Europe we can see that the objectives have not been achieved. In many cases the situation has deteriorated and we therefore cannot settle for just rationalisation of the texts.
We must set objectives which are equal to the challenges facing us. Yet we do not have much time. We could, as the Commission has proposed, accept these overlong deadlines which the Commission and the Council have extended even further. Yet if we do, we will not only have a credibility problem with the general public, but these efforts will be postponed until tomorrow and then tomorrow they will be deferred again. It is clear that in this event the objectives will never be achieved.
I am stressing this point because, when disasters are being reported daily in the news, we cannot just keep on saying for the umpteenth time that Europe did not act when it should have done. Then, in our haste, we act as if we will solve the problems which we refused to tackle properly at the appropriate time. The current example of the Danube and the pollution from Rumania shows very clearly that if we fail to establish a new method of economic development, clear requirements, controls and precise measures concerning the state of our rivers, this type of incident will not only occur again but will do so increasingly over time. It is also clear that if we do nothing, our agriculture will continue to develop in a very unbalanced manner. Even now, the rivers in Brittany are eutrophying and this is damaging tourism.
To conclude, the issues are clear at this second reading. Do we or do we not want standards compatible with OSPAR, in other words to get dangerous substances down to zero? Do we want to shorten the deadlines proposed by the Council for this directive? Do we want to have a pricing policy which enables all public and private participants to clean up and save water? Do we seriously want to respond to the hopes of our peoples? The majority of the amendments approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection meet these objectives. I hope they will be supported by this House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples