Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-317"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.9.2-317"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, the Commission has carefully considered the proposed amendments. We are able to accept three-quarters of them fully, in part, or in principle. Most offer helpful clarification and improve the quality of the proposal, as has been expressed by speakers here tonight.
It is quite difficult to see how and by whom any scheme would be administered and enforced. That said, we are actively considering emissions trading and other economic instruments as possible complements to regulation in future.
For this reason we can accept Amendment No 44 in principle, which requires the Commission to consider a range of economic instruments and report back to Parliament and the Council.
The last issue relates to requirements on the Commission. Amendment Nos 32 and 44 propose to bring forward the date of the Commission's 2010 report on the implementation of the directive. They also require the Commission to present new proposals, with a report, to revise fuel sulphur limits or to introduce economic instruments. The Commission believes that it would be too early to report on the implementation of the directive in 2007 or 2008, given that some of the proposed fuel sulphur limits would not enter into force until 2008.
We also believe that it is premature to prescribe the content of the report and require it to be accompanied by legislative proposals. While we can accept Amendment Nos 30 and 34 in principle, we believe these are also too prescriptive about the Commission's activities. You know how sensitive we are to these things. In each case we would propose an alternative wording.
Finally, just a few words about the possibilities offered by exhaust-gas cleaning. The tighter fuel sulphur limits proposed in today's report are linked to the possible use of exhaust-gas cleaning technology or scrubbing, as an alternative means of compliance. This is allowed under MARPOL and, provided it does not emit harmful effluent into enclosed waters, the Commission proposal already includes a review clause to allow scrubbing in future. The technology appears to offer potential benefits, reducing sulphur dioxide emissions, nitrogen oxides and particles. It may also cost less than switching fuels for ships which frequently travel on EU seas. On the other hand it is very important to prove that the technology has no adverse impact on the marine environment, so that we do not simply replace one environmental problem with another, as you have also pointed out.
Subject to successful sea trials we believe that scrubbing can indeed be considered as an alternative to low-sulphur fuels and not just for the proposed second-phase limit of 0.5%. So, we welcome Parliament's proposals for a new text on scrubbing.
I would like to hand in a list in writing summarising the Commission's position on all the amendments tabled. I would also like to thank all Members of the European Parliament for their interesting contributions.
Those amendments that we cannot accept or accept only in part relate to three main issues.
The first and biggest issue is the proposal for tighter marine fuel sulphur limits extended to a wider sea area. The report proposes a phased approach, starting with the 1.5% set out in the Commission proposal, with a tighter 0.5% limit in a second phase. Later phases also extend the area where ships have to comply with these limits in all exclusive economic zones and territorial seas throughout the European Union.
Amendment No 20 contradicts this and goes further still, proposing that the 0.2% sulphur limit for ships at berth should be extended throughout the 12-mile territorial seas of all EU Member States.
We believe that these new and extended limits are premature. I do not doubt that there may be environmental benefits. These have not been quantified; nor have the costs, which could be significant. Contrary to the normal rules of economics, the more low-sulphur fuel is required, the more expensive it gets. That is because refineries have to invest more and more in de-sulphurisation technology to increase capacity.
The proposed new phases also go beyond the internationally agreed 1.5% sulphur emission control area in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel, but it is open to Member States to propose the designation of new sulphur emission control areas at the International Maritime Organisation and to negotiate tighter fuel limits for these areas.
Shipping is a global industry. Given that this international policy mechanism exists, we believe that it should be used as a first resort. However, if tighter limits prove necessary and an international solution cannot be reached, the review clause in the proposal gives the Commission the right to take action at EU level at a later date.
The second issue concerns emissions offsetting, or trading. The concept of emissions trading for conventional air pollutants is not currently well developed at EU level, even for land-based stationary emission sources. For sea-going mobile emission sources – ships – we also believe that the idea is somewhat premature.
Trading is not permitted under MARPOL Annex VI. Another concern is that ship emissions of air pollutants have regional or local impacts that trading schemes might not be sensitive enough to address."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples