Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.7.2-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the proposal we are discussing today, together with the directives on large combustion plants and national emission ceilings, forms an important part of the Community's ongoing efforts to clean up air over Europe. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Davies, for his hard and dedicated work on this important and complex issue.
The proposal sets target values and long-term objectives for ozone in ambient air. While the long-term objectives are based on the latest advice from the World Health Organization, the target values have been set with regard to the best attainable air quality. In doing so, the transboundary nature of ozone and cost-efficiency aspects have been taken into account.
As I mentioned earlier, this proposal is closely related to the proposal for a directive on national emission ceilings where conciliation negotiations are currently under way and we have to recognise the difficulty of finding a solution for linked issues, for example the target values for ozone, in the absence of a definitive outcome. At its first reading in March last year, Parliament presented a well-considered report including 18 amendments. Council's common position adopted in March 2001 takes due account of most of Parliament's concerns. Now 32 amendments have been tabled to the text of the common position.
Amendments Nos 4, 15 and the first part of Amendment No 23 all seek to turn the target values into binding limit values. In light of the insufficient scientific knowledge on ozone formation, the Commission cannot accept any of those amendments. On the other hand we can accept in principle Amendments Nos 30 and 31 requiring binding target values, save where physically impossible. However, we would also have to bear in mind that target values would not be attained where it is not efficient from an economic viewpoint.
With regard to the target values, it is not acceptable for the Commission to keep 20 days as the target value for the protection of human health. The Commission agreed on Council's common position on national emission ceilings, which result in 25 days as an attainable target. Therefore the Commission cannot accept the second part of Amendment No 23. Moreover, Amendment No 23 would set 2020 as a binding target year to attain the long-term objectives. Amendments Nos 3, 5 and 15 follow the same intention. As there is there is no scientific evidence yet to prove this aim to be feasible, the Commission cannot accept those amendments. However, the Commission agrees on the general aim fully to close the gap between long-term objectives and current ozone levels and could accept Amendments Nos 2 and 6.
Amendments Nos 26 to 31 would require attainment of the long-term objectives, save where physically impossible. Again, this would have to be complemented by taking account of economic efficiency as well. Therefore, those amendments could only be accepted in principle. Several amendments would enforce the obligations of Member States to report to the public and the Commission. The Commission welcomes these amendments if the requirements are considered feasible and useful. The Commission therefore could accept Amendments Nos 8, the second part of 10 and 16. Amendment No 11 would be acceptable in part. Amendment No 17, in principle. Amendment 32 would complement Amendment No 17 in a way that is acceptable. The first part of Amendment No 10 and Amendments Nos 18 to 20 and 25 are not acceptable.
Amendments Nos 12 and 14 both clarify responsibilities in setting up short-term action plans and are acceptable in part and in principle. The last part of Amendment No 12 and Amendment No 13 are acceptable in stressing the role of guidance on examples for short-term actions. The Commission accepts Amendment No 24, which supports a more effective trigger value to initiate short-term actions.
There are four amendments on other issues. Among those the Commission cannot accept is Amendment No 1, as it is directed towards candidate countries, which is not appropriate for an EU directive. We can accept Amendment No 7 on tightening requirements to maintain air quality. Amendment No 21 would require a direct comparison between the performance of Member States in improving air quality and the Commission could not accept this amendment as the proposed comparison is not considered appropriate, in particular, with regard to the transboundary nature of ozone. As Amendment No 33 incorporates those aspects, it could be accepted in principle. However, no direct comparison of Member States should be required. Finally, Amendment No 22 requires special attention to the effects of ozone on human health and the environment and the Commission accepts this amendment.
I consider it essential to put this legislation in place soon, so that appropriate monitoring can start. Member States need to be able to identify problem areas, so that they can make sure that the public's health is properly protected in the future throughout the Union. Hopefully a valid compromise will soon be found, having regard to the outcome of the conciliation negotiations on the directive on national emission ceilings."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples