Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.13.3-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, it is an exciting journey that is being undertaken with a proposal for a new Environment Action Programme. It has been extremely instructive. Clearly, a certain comfort has sometimes been found in the fact that you have, at all events, had kind and friendly things to say about both myself and the skilful rapporteur.
It is also gratifying that the committee supports the idea of, and proposal for, thematic strategies, together with the proposed content of these. The committee has added a proposal on the urban environment. This is to be found in Amendments Nos 32 and 33, which are acceptable overall. We thus have a stable platform for future work and cooperation.
The problem is that the proposal that the strategies should be ready to implement within three years is in conflict with the requirement for best scientific findings and for broadly based consultation and participation. We should also remember that we have seven thematic strategies to deal with. In the light, too, of Amendment No 12, requiring all thematic strategies to be subject to the co-decision procedure, this means that the Commission must present all the thematic strategies by no later than the end of the year so that there is time for the co-decision procedure. We can perhaps meet the deadline for some isolated thematic strategy, but scarcely for all of them. That is why I would call upon the European Parliament not to push this issue too hard. Give us an opportunity to develop the strategies and to put forward a package of measures that is best suited to the current problems. We cannot therefore approve Amendments Nos 12, 13 and 41, but I shall keep the European parliament informed of our work on the thematic strategies, and we shall submit oral reports each year in order to fulfil the requirement in Amendment No 14.
I must inform Parliament that I am opposed to most of the amendments concerning chemicals. The problem with these is that there is no agreed definition of the principle of indemnification. We should therefore examine this carefully before we make it legally binding. Naturally, I believe it has its part to play, but before we make it legally binding we must arrive at a definition which is tenable. Regarding the proposal that the REACH Register should include all existing substances and that all products, unlike substances and preparations, should be labelled, all I can say is that it would be practically impossible. We are nonetheless able in principle to approve Amendment No 31 on the coordination of the work involving chemicals and pesticides, even if there is already such coordination.
Regarding the issue of voluntary commitments and agreements, we see these as part of an advantageous mix of various political tools including, for example, legal and financial tools. According to the OECD, there are more than 300 agreements in the Member States of the Community. They differ considerably from one another, depending upon how flexibly they are adapted to different situations and objectives. The Commission plans to submit a communication examining the potential of such tools. It is too early to determine what the agreements under the programme will look like, and we cannot therefore approve Amendments Nos 9 and 40.
There is general support from the Commission regarding quite a number of other issues, for example sustainable development and integration, measures affecting tax rates at Community level, environmental crimes etc. In addition to those I mentioned earlier, the Commission is able to support Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 18, 19, 21, 39 and 45, together with parts of Amendments Nos 43, 46 and 47. I cannot however accept the other amendments tabled.
We are close to reaching an agreement on the Environment Action Programme for the next ten years. Mrs Myller’s efforts as rapporteur at this second reading have been much appreciated. No repetition of the debate is required because her amendments have been carefully selected, something which bodes well for the next step in the procedure.
I hope that, on the basis of the amendments supported by the Commission, the Council will adopt a positive approach to Parliament's opinion so that those of us in the Commission, the Council and Parliament, in conjunction with other interested parties, can together continue with our work on conserving and improving our environment. Thank you for an interesting debate.
Possibly we should have talked rather more about what was expected from the Sixth Environment Action Programme as early as when you questioned me. We perhaps should have straightened this out at an earlier stage, for I can see that this debate embraces many incompatible and rather contradictory desires.
We appreciate that a programme may be needed that extends over a longer period because environmental problems often arise after a certain number of years. We also need a longer planning period if the measures we take are to be the right ones. On the other hand, we should of course very much like to draw up practical measures and objectives because it is in that way that we can put pressure on the Member States. We cannot, however, just come up with credible objectives for a ten-year period. The programme states the overarching objectives, and it is of course extremely important for us to know that this is the direction in which we must be moving. At the same time, we are concerned here with a programme of action and of measures to be taken, and that is what we have aimed at. We must state how we intend to set about achieving the objectives, while the practical objectives and deadlines must be incorporated into, respectively, the thematic strategy and the various draft laws and other proposals we submit during this ten-year period. The idea behind the programme was not, then, just to continue with the same thing and add a long list of legislative proposals to those which were already in the Fifth Action Programme and which, moreover, as Mrs Jackson quite correctly said, fail very often to be implemented properly. That is something we must get to grips with.
It is, however, also important to emphasise what we in actual fact agree about, that is to say the overall structure and the priorities. It is a question of daring to say that these four issues are the most important. It is also a question of the underlying principles that are to govern environmental policy during this ten-tear period and of the need to consult widely and to have broad participation in decision-making on environmental issues. We agree on which issues are to be highlighted: climate change, the natural environment and bio-diversity, health and environmental measures, and the issues of how we use our natural resources and dispose of waste. We also agree that current legislation is to be fully implemented in practice, that environmental considerations are to be integrated into all other policy areas and that legislators, decision makers and the general public must have access to adequate information.
The strategy for the next ten years is in actual fact based upon the Fifth Environment Action Programme, which has been developed by means of a description of how environmental policy and its challenges have altered. Current patterns of life and consumption, the way in which goods are produced and the way in which we live and operate as private individuals affect environmental problems.
The environmental action programme is challenging. I am aware of the fact and accept responsibility for it. Even though there has been some tough criticism, I believe it is right to dare to tackle something new and try to find a new structure. For me, it was important to design an environment action programme which everyone, and not only the experts, can follow and assess when new proposals are made and initiatives presented, as was the case for example with the recent climate package. That is why I do not of course agree with rejecting the Council’s common position. Now that we have carried out all this work, we ought surely to try to complete it and help each other as far as possible.
In principle, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy offers its unqualified support for the general approach to developing future environmental policy that forms part of the Council’s common position. Of relevance here too are the requirements that policy must be based upon participation and dialogue and upon the best possible scientific findings that are available. That means that we must be very thorough in analysing the problems we face, together with possible solutions, at the same time as studying current research and making use of indicators etc. In that way, we shall create policy through solid work, and that will be in accordance with the strategic orientation of this programme.
It also means, as I said, that it is meaningless to introduce objectives and guidelines into the programme more or less arbitrarily. At the same time, I want to avoid possible misunderstandings and explain clearly that I do of course support the use of clear objectives and deadlines. Moreover, our proposals will include these, and they must be discussed in both Parliament and the Council. The few overarching objectives the programme now contains are generally known, and so they should be.
I am also, of course, able to approve the additional objectives proposed by the Commission in its communication on sustainable development prior to the Gothenburg Summit, that is to say Amendments Nos 11, 15, 16 and 27. That is, however, on condition that they faithfully reflect our communication. I cannot approve the incorporation of other objectives into the programme, as has been done in Amendments Nos 17, 24, 25, 26, 34 and 42."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples