Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.4.2-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal is based on the common position adopted by the Council for a water framework directive. The common position made no provision either for identification of ‘priority hazardous substances’ or for the gradual elimination of pollution of waters by hazardous substances. We must emphasise once again that the European Parliament deserves credit for ensuring that the OSPAR strategy will be integrated into the water framework directive. Parliament insisted on integration being treated as a key issue in the conciliation procedure.
The aim is to eliminate water pollution gradually, by continuously reducing discharges, emissions, leakage and spillage of priority hazardous substances with the target of complete elimination within 20 years. Under the water directive, the criteria for the identification of such substances focus firstly on their inherent characteristics and secondly on the definitions contained in the existing international, UN, OSPAR and other lists.
Of the 32 substances to which the priority classification has been assigned, the proposal lists eleven as priority hazardous substances, a further eleven as priority substances under review and the remaining ten as regular priority substances. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy proposes that the Commission undertake the categorisation of the eleven substances on the ‘under review’ list in the course of the coming year. In this way the Environment Committee seeks to ensure that the Commission does not defer its decision as to whether these eleven substances are priority hazardous substances or only priority substances until the year 2004, when, under Article 16 of the water framework directive, the lists of priority substances are due for revision.
Through this proposal, the Environment Committee also wants to ensure that Article 16 is actually applied and that the decision on the categorisation of the substances on the ‘under review’ list is not shelved in deference to industrial or other interests. I believe it is crucially important that we the European Parliament should exert due pressure on the Commission.
One thing we must always bear in mind is that this report only serves to pave the way for the necessary measures and that the framework directive lays down a 20-year time frame for the achievement of the environmental targets in the realm of water protection.
The Environment Committee also wants to see changes in the COMMPS procedure. This should be continually developed and improved. In future it should no longer be confined to particular substances. For example, it has not hitherto covered those substances for which no data are available at Community level from national monitoring programmes. This applies to 60% of the pesticides that are available today. Parliament wishes to rectify these serious deficiencies as well as other shortcomings of the present COMMPS procedure, so as to ensure that all substances will be covered in the future. Many of the current deficiencies are due to the fact that our policymakers have no data on certain chemicals. If we wish to protect our waters effectively against hazardous chemicals, we also need a change of policy on the acquisition of data regarding chemical substances. The Commission, in fact, has already set this in motion.
So you will see that we are striving to reach a solution which the House as well as the Council and Commission will support. The central issue in this discussion will be the results of the categorisation of the substances on the ‘under review’ list. The Committee wishes this categorisation to be effected as soon as possible, as I have already stated. The Commission and the Council see a feasibility problem. That is why I, as rapporteur, have tabled Amendment No 27, in a further attempt to provide the basis for a solution. The proposal is that the measures should not be jeopardised by this ‘under review’ list that the Commission is introducing. This, I believe, is our common objective. This proposal must not be pushed towards the rear of the catalogue of implementable measures, a move which would prevent us from achieving the environmental aims we have to achieve in order to protect our water resources.
With regard to the talks that have taken place between the Council, the Commission and Parliament, I hope we have now found a sound compromise, which will enable us to conclude this matter at first reading. In other words, it is now up to the Council and the Commission to decide whether they will abide by the outcome of the parliamentary vote, thereby enabling us to start as quickly as possible to introduce real measures for the protection of water resources."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples