Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-294"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.13.2-294"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I want to begin by thanking the rapporteur and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for their support of the Commission’s proposal and draft report. Within the European Union, we have achieved a certain amount of success when it comes to improving air quality. Nonetheless, ozone still constitutes one of the most serious environmental problems. On more than 60 days every summer in a number of locations in Central and Southern Europe, ozone levels exceed the target values set by the World Health Organisation. The Fifth Environmental Action Programme established the long-term objective of ensuring that these limits were not in fact exceeded. If we are to be able to solve this problem, we need to take measures with clearly defined subsidiary objectives.
The Commission’s proposal therefore for the first time establishes clear limits upon ozone levels which, as far as possible, are to be attained by no later than the year 2010. The target value in terms of protecting people’s health means that the WHO’s guidelines must not be exceeded on more than 20 days per year. Programmes for reducing emissions are necessary in those cases where the target values are not attained. The directive on national emission ceilings, which is the next point on the agenda, will lead to improvements in ozone levels so that the target values in question might for the most part be attained. The proposal is nonetheless a clear expression of the political will that exists to attain the long-term objectives in the directive, too. Attaining the World Health Organisation’s target values is only the first step. In reviewing the Directive in the year 2004, we must therefore analyse how and when we can achieve the long-term objective.
The Commission is able wholly to approve Amendments Nos 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 15. Amendment No 5, section two, is also acceptable in view of the fact that the Member States have to prepare emission reduction programmes before they can implement them. With regard to Amendment No 9, the Commission is also able to approve some of the changes in their entirety and the majority of them in principle. We approve those changes relating to short-term measures which are to be implemented in each zone in which the threshold value is exceeded. We also agree that the Member States should inform the public as to whether they intend to prepare and implement short-term action plans and, if so, in what ways, and that they should also inform them as to how often such measures have been taken. We believe it is necessary for this information to be reported to the Commission. However, that issue is more at home in Article 10. We cannot, however, accept that short-term measures should only be taken at local level. Nor do we believe that the Member States should be enjoined to analyse whether short-term measures are an effective tool in each individual case and in each individual place where the threshold value has been exceeded.
The Commission is able to approve the principles behind Amendments 10 and 11. We are going to redraft subparagraph 1c in order to take account of the idea behind the last section of Amendment No 9 and Amendments Nos 10 and 11. Amendment No 12 can be approved in principle. The Commission believes that progress by the Member States ought to be presented in a form which permits direct comparisons between countries, if that is possible in practice. The principle in Amendment No 16 is also acceptable. The Commission agrees that climate changes ought to be emphasised. This ought, however, to be done in a broader perspective and not only in relation to changes in fuel consumption. Amendment No 2 advocates coordination between Member States and Applicant States. This can in principle be approved, but some rewording is required if misinterpretations are to be avoided. We cannot, however, approve Amendment No 1. Even if the Commission agrees that it is important to involve the Applicant States, there is no reason for reiterating this in a directive aimed at the Member States.
Nor is Amendment No 8 acceptable when it comes to predictions of exceedances of information thresholds. The use of prognosis models is specified as a prerequisite of thresholds for alerting the public, something which would make the way in which the public is informed or alerted less reliable. This is an issue on which practical considerations and the possibility of practical implementation must be taken into account.
Finally, we must reject the first and third sections of Amendment No 5, together with Amendments Nos 17 and 18. In the present situation, we quite simply do not have enough information available to be able to predict when the long-term objective of not exceeding the World Health Organisation’s guidelines can be attained. In addition, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 28."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples