Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.3.3-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur for her constructive approach and for being open to dialogue with all the interested parties – including the Commission – which I hope will finally enable us all to achieve a positive result in relation to this directive. I would also like to highlight the quality of the report which we are debating today and I would like to talk about what I see as the most significant problems raised in the various amendments that have been tabled and the interventions of the various Members. My sincere thanks for all your comments and points of view.
Nor will we accept the amendment which implies a rejection of the joint text – Amendment No 26 – which contradicts the other approaches. I do not believe it is necessary to point out that this directive on the strategic environmental assessment is a key instrument for integrating the environment into policies and for promoting sustainable development in the European Union. I believe that a rejection of the joint position would deal a serious blow to these principles which are at the heart of the Treaties and which must inspire all our policies.
I understand that this may seem insufficient to some of you, but we must appreciate that sometimes it is not always best to seek perfection. I believe that we should seek something acceptable, which would be a step forward, rather than reach a deadlock. Mr President, having carefully examined all the amendments, I can tell you that the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1, 5 (sections 2 and 5), 6, 12, 28 (section 1) and 29. Amendments Nos 9 (the part which refers to the requirement to justify that the strategic environmental assessment is not necessary), 10 (sections 1 and 2), 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24 and 25 are acceptable in principle, providing that there is some rewording of its content. The Commission cannot, however, under any circumstances, accept Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5 (sections 1, 3 and 4), 7, 8, 9 (in the part on the requirement to justify the need for a strategic environmental assessment), 10 (section 3), 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 (section 2), 30 and 31.
Of the key questions, I would firstly like to mention those amendments which involve broadening the scope of the future directive. The joint position clearly distinguishes the plans for which the strategic environmental assessment is obligatory from those for which it is necessary to make a selection, a screening. The Commission is inclined towards this approach, provided that the joint position is improved, because we believe that otherwise it would be insufficient.
Firstly, there must be a balance between the plans for which the strategic environmental assessment is obligatory and those for which we have to make a selection.
Secondly, the scope of the directive must, in any event, be sufficiently broad and systematically include those plans which have a significant impact on the environment.
This is why the Commission enthusiastically supports some of Parliament’s amendments which broaden the scope of this directive and do so in a balanced fashion, such as, for example, the second and fifth sections of Amendment No 5, which have been mentioned by the rapporteur and also by some other speakers, such as Mrs González, which proposes also including extractive activities. We also support Amendment No 6.
Nevertheless, we believe that some amendments go too far and propose the strategic environmental assessment for plans which will not probably have a significant impact on the environment. For example, section 4 of Amendment No 5 would make these assessments obligatory for all the plans for the sectors listed in the directive. The third section of Amendment No 10 would mean an unnecessary burden for the Member States.
Some amendments limit the directive’s scope even further and actually contradict what I have just said. Certain amendments would reduce the scope, such as Amendment No 3, which limits the scope to the plans financed by the EU, or Amendments Nos 11 and 31, which allow States to choose the level or levels of planning with which these strategic environmental assessments will be carried out. This would exclude many plans which have an impact on the environment. Now, if Parliament were to adopt these amendments together with those which broaden the scope to plans with no significant impact, it seems to me that we would end up with a text which is inconsistent with itself.
These amendments seem to be inspired by the fear of the assessment being duplicated. In my view, this fear is not sufficiently justified. Planning is usually carried out at various levels and each one has its own specific characteristics. The carrying out of assessments at various levels of planning is not a duplication of the assessment, especially given the safeguards contained in Articles 4, 5 and 10 of the joint position which are intended to prevent just the kind of duplication which Mr Lange, for example, referred to.
Thirdly, I would point out the amendments which establish the procedures for planning and programming the screening and the definition of the scope of the assessment – Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 13 – and which require the screening to be carried out on a case by case basis, with the participation of the public in all cases. I believe that the objective of the screening and the definition of the scope of the assessment is to determine, quickly and efficiently, which plans and which environmental problems are the most relevant. Establishing the best way to deal with these issues will require practical experience. We therefore believe it is too soon to establish that all circumstances justify a screening and a broad scope. We therefore believe that, by incorporating the provisions on the screening and the definition of the scope into their national legislation, Member States would be liable to exceed the requirements of the directive and, for that reason, we will not accept these amendments."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples