Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-289"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.11.2-289"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want, of course, to begin by thanking the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and, above all, the rapporteur, Mrs Lienemann for the ambitious and constructive work she has put into the present framework water directive. Water is one of our most important natural resources, as many speakers have already said. An ambitious and well-balanced European policy in the field of water is an important component of guaranteed sustainable development for Europe. Water is also one of the issues to which I shall be devoting particular attention during my term of office.
The Commission fully supports the proposal to introduce the commitments under the OSPAR Convention into the text. We must, however, keep to their precise scope and content. As I said, their purpose and the timetable for implementing them are political in character. It would not be in keeping with this to introduce a legally binding timetable. It must nonetheless be guaranteed that the Member States and the Community are compelled to take measures to achieve the relevant goals and comply with the timetables. I therefore welcome Amendments Nos 6, 10, 14, 24, 58, 60 and 88 .
The Commission cannot, on the other hand, approve Amendment No 19, in which hazardous substances are defined differently than in OSPAR. The Commission’s proposal introduces a clear procedure for selecting substances, and so no definition is needed. Even if I too agree with the contents of Amendments Nos 79 and 106, these go beyond the commitments under OSPAR, and I cannot therefore approve these Amendments.
The Commission can also, in principle, approve Amendment No 60, according to which a timetable is required for implementing the Commission’s proposal to limit discharges of prioritised substances.
Amendment No 59 introduces requirements to the effect that the list of prioritised substances should continually be reviewed. This would involve legal uncertainty as to the status of the list and cannot, therefore, be approved. The desire expressed in Amendments Nos 60 and 93 for a list of goals and a list of substances for which no adequate data is available cannot be approved. Lists of this kind would not have clear legal status and do not fit in with the procedures for adopting the list of prioritised substances. I would point out in this regard that the OSPAR Convention does not in any way alter existing Community legislation concerning nitrates from the agricultural sector. The Nitrates Directive will not therefore be influenced by the present framework directive.
I appreciate the fact that Parliament has proved to be flexible over the very sensitive and difficult question of imposing charges for water services. I can wholeheartedly support the demand that the price of water should be set at a level which creates incentives to use water resources in a sustainable way. I also support the demand for a suitable contribution from each sector to cover own costs. I can therefore partly, and in principle, approve Amendments Nos 43-46, together with Amendment No 85.
I believe that we need legally binding requirements stating that the financial costs of water services are to be covered by each economic sector. This would constitute a clear goal against which progress could be measured. I therefore support the overall thrust of Amendment No 105, which is in line with the Commission’s original proposal. I also support a gradual development in the direction of covering environmental costs and the costs of resources.
We are aware of the fact that the price of water and water services is a complicated issue and that account must be taken not only of environmental goals but also of social and economic goals. This must not, however, be an excuse for subsidising inefficient economic sectors which cause pollution. We intend shortly to issue a communication from the Commission on precisely this question.
I agree with Parliament that the common position’s sixteen-year timeframe for implementing these measures must be considerably reduced. The same also applies to the possibility which exists of extending the period of implementation by a further eighteen years.
Amendment No 28, cancelling the third extension period, is an important step in the right direction. This proposal can therefore be approved. A period of ten years, as proposed in Amendments Nos 24 and 26, among others, is, on the other hand, too short.
I believe that consideration ought to be given to wording the overall definition of the requirements under the proposal in such a way that it includes a strict and explicit condition to the effect that causing deterioration of the environment must be avoided. The proposal must also include more stringent criteria for establishing lesser environmental objectives and for extending deadlines in connection with heavily modified or artificial bodies of water. This applies to Amendments Nos 6, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 78, 80, 102 and 104. These Amendments may in large part be approved and will be supported until such time as an overall solution can be found.
I am pleased about the spirit of agreement which permeates the amendments that have been submitted to Parliament. Many of them are based upon the very constructive, informal discussions which have taken place between Parliament and the Council in connection with the first reading.
To comply with the demands in Amendments Nos 27 and 29, to the effect that the Commission should approve every extension, would be going too far, and these cannot be approved.
Another important area is protection of the groundwater. We need both a starting point and a final goal if we are to reverse the upward trend in pollution. We also need stricter criteria for interpreting the results of any monitoring.
The most important parts of Parliament’s Amendments Nos 25 and 73 can therefore be approved in principle. The new definition in Amendment No 72 is, however, too strict and cannot be applied for this purpose. I would propose that Amendment No 92 should be incorporated into a broader solution.
Amendment No 71 does not take account of seasonal variations and annual changes in the level of the groundwater. The proposal cannot therefore be approved.
The Commission considers it unrealistic and unnecessary to lay down standards guaranteeing that the least intensive water purification is adequate to ensure that surface water is of drinking water quality. Instead, we prefer an addition to those measures which are required in accordance with Article 11 to promote activities in this area. The good status which is required under this proposal ought to guarantee that the demand for surface water of good quality is fulfilled. This part of Amendment No 41 cannot, therefore, be approved.
The Commission appreciates Parliament’s efforts to guarantee that the so-called combined approach is given a central role. This approach and its scope, which the Commission can in principle approve, are defined by Amendments Nos 22 and 47. In order to achieve the greatest possible legal clarity and proportionality, we wish, however, to reformulate Amendment No 47 and to add a
provision.
The transfer of water is already covered by controls, but explicitly mentioning it makes the text clearer. These parts of Amendments Nos 49 and 87 can, therefore, be approved. It is nonetheless unnecessary to make it a condition that all the measures for controlling demand should be adopted. The proposal already specifies that water must be abstracted in accordance with the ecological needs in the river basin district concerned. These parts of Amendments Nos 49 and 87 cannot, therefore, be approved.
The Commission approves Amendment No 76 to the effect that radioactive substances are explicitly to be included in the proposal.
To summarise, the Commission is able to approve 72 amendments, either in their entirety, partially or in principle. The following amendments cannot be approved: 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 23, 39, 40, 51, 59, 61, 64, 66, 70, 71, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79, 81, 83, 87, 89, 90, 91, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 106 and 107.
Finally, I want to say that I welcome the efforts which Parliament has made to try to solve the questions on which the Council takes other views. Important progress has been made, and the constructive tone of the discussions creates a good working climate for future discussions. A number of obstacles remain, but I am convinced that, as the legislative work progresses, we shall achieve our common goal of creating a water policy we can be proud of. Parliament’s adopting a clear position will be an important contribution to an ambitious, European water policy for the next three decades.
Most of Parliament’s proposed amendments help improve the text and make it more ambitious. The Commission can approve 72 of the 108 amendments, either in their entirety, partially or in principle. Many of the amendments which Parliament has submitted show that reconciliation will be necessary. With a view to these forthcoming negotiations, I would therefore urge Parliament to vote in favour of an ambitious position.
Firstly, I should like to mention some of my most important arguments. We now have the opportunity to put into practice those measures to which we agreed under the OSPAR Convention. Rather than make these objectives legally binding, we must consider their political nature. This is also reflected in many of Parliament’s amendments.
Where water charges are concerned, the present directive will constitute Europe’s water policy for the next three decades. It is our duty to ensure from the very start that the present directive provides the right incentives and the proper driving force for a pricing system and an efficient structure of charges which will improve our environment in a cost-effective way. It sounds good, saying that access to water should be a human right and ought to be free of charge. But water is
free of charge, any more than houses or food are free of charge. It is only by means of efficient instruments of control that we can arrive at a situation in which water is better managed and more carefully husbanded as a resource.
I also want to add that, when it comes to groundwater and to water which has been heavily modified by human activities, I support a tighter timetable and a clarification of goals and of criteria for allowing exceptions to the rules. I also support expressly mentioning radioactive substances.
In the course of the debate, many speakers have pointed out how important it is to consult the general public and keep them informed. I just want to emphasise this further. It is absolutely crucial that we involve the general public by keeping them well informed and by proceeding to consult them. This is also expressed in Recital 14.
Allow me also to say to Mr Bowe that, in common with my Scottish colleague, he need have no pangs of conscience about continuing to enjoy a glass of Scotch whisky now and again. We have not considered it necessary for the Commission to regulate the very limited abstraction of water for whisky production.
Allow me now to comment on some of the areas in a little more detail. Limiting discharges of hazardous substances into our waters must be one of the most important objectives. I am glad to see that Parliament’s amendments have focused upon this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples