Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-196"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.9.3-196"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I should like to congratulate the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Callanan, for the general support in their report.
Amendments 16 to 20 and Amendment 24 envisage changing the scope and timing of future work to be undertaken by the Commission. They cannot be accepted as they would restrict the Commission's right of initiative.
In conclusion, the Commission can accept the first part of Amendment 1 and Amendments 6, 14 and 21. On the contrary the Commission cannot accept Amendments 1, second part, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 to 20 and 22 to 24.
The Commission is looking forward to working with Parliament and the Council towards a solution which on the one hand guarantees a high level of environmental protection and on the other hand meets the requirements of the internal market. I would like to thank the rapporteur and Parliament for their efforts.
The Commission's proposal to modify the recreational craft directive aims to avoid fragmentation of the internal market and seeks to integrate environmental concerns. As such, this proposal provides a good example of the synergy that is needed between environmental and industrial policies for the achievement of sustainable development.
Air and water pollution and engine noise from recreational boating activities have become increasingly sensitive issues. While exhaust emissions from recreational craft contribute little to the overall pollution of the marine environment, their local effects are nevertheless important.
Recreational boating activities are often concentrated in environmentally sensitive areas so it is important that this activity does not disturb local fauna. Moreover, boating activities often take place at the weekend and in holiday periods resulting in a concentration of the nuisance they can cause to local inhabitants.
I share with Mr Callanan the hope that the amendments that are adopted will deal appropriately with the need for harmonised reduction of exhaust and noise emissions, while at the same time avoiding over-regulation.
I therefore welcome in particular Amendment 14 to extend the 3 decibel sound allowance to the scope originally proposed by the Commission. The Commission can also agree with Amendments 6 and 21 as they will provide for consistency in the references to 'placing on the market and/or putting into service' throughout the directive. Also the first part of Amendment 1 can be accepted, since it provides an improved wording of the recital.
Amendments 4, 5, 12 and 22 re-introducing the proposals to delete or reduce the provisions on the Regulatory Committee cannot be accepted by the Commission. A regulatory committee is necessary for the efficient implementation and the regular updating of a specified range of technical elements contained in the technical annexes to the proposed directive. This approach is in line with the principles of better regulation.
Another important topic of debate has been that of the right to adopt more stringent requirements at national level. Amendments have also been tabled to introduce at Community level more stringent emission limits on standing inland waters.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 1, second part, 11 and 13, as they would fragment the internal market."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples