Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-28-Speech-4-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050428.5.4-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Commission believes that, given the current lack of knowledge about the environmental quality of groundwater and the huge variety of natural conditions which exist in Europe, it is not technically feasible, nor is it desirable to introduce on this basis new standards for a more comprehensive list of substances at the level of the European Union. That is why the Commission proposed a small number of quality standards at European Union level and took care to ensure that the Member States would adopt appropriate threshold values for other dangerous substances which are considered to be a risk to groundwater. The term 'threshold value' was used purely and simply to distinguish the national standards in question from the standards at European Union level. Nonetheless, we accept that the adoption of the term 'threshold values' may cause confusion.
That is why we are prepared to accept in principle Amendments 17 and 57 and the related Amendments 30, 31 34, 69, 70 and 71. Using the term 'groundwater quality standards' throughout the text clarifies at the same time that, for certain substances, the quality standards in question will be adopted at European Union level and that, for other substances, the standards in question will be adopted by the Member States. The Commission likewise welcomes Amendment 65, which calls for the adoption of a common methodology in the proposal, so that groundwater quality standards are adopted on the basis of common criteria. As far as the compliance procedure is concerned, the Commission is in a position to agree in principle with Amendments 28, 29 and 58, in order to allow some degree of flexibility when the good chemical status of groundwater is defined. However, greater flexibility cannot mean compromise as far as environmental targets are concerned, and the text must be absolutely clear on this point.
Amendments 1 and 2 propose that it should be clarified that the directive concerns the protection of groundwater against chemical pollution and deterioration, a proposal which we can support. Nonetheless, the references to parameters relating to drinking water, as defined in Amendments 3 and 4, would appear to be off the mark, given that the proposal focuses on environmental targets relating to groundwater, while the measures for drinking water are satisfactorily covered by Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. As regards Amendment 94, which numerous speakers referred to today, I should like to clarify that the Commission cannot accept it. The proposed changes may cause confusion and water down the arrangements which already exist in the Water Framework Directive. Similarly, I am not in a position to accept amendments touching on matters which are already covered by the Water Framework Directive. This applies to Amendments 7, 10 and 15 relating to the quantitative aspects of groundwater management, Amendment 16 referring to the characterisation of groundwater and Amendment 52 referring to the 'polluter pays' principle. Amendments 21 and 22, relating to the new definitions of deterioration and background concentration, are acceptable to the Commission. However, acceptance of Amendments 23 and 49, which propose a new definition and separate system for historical contaminated sites, cannot be supported, given that management of the sites in question does not come within the scope of the present proposal.
As far as monitoring is concerned, the Commission agrees with Amendments 14, 41 and 43 on the need to tighten up demands in relation to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive relating to the harmonisation of measurement methods and the compatibility and pertinence of the related data. As regards preventing and limiting discharges to groundwater, the Commission is in a position to accept in principle the majority of the clarifications proposed in Amendments 19, 20, 43 and 48. As regards determining and reversing trends in the quality of groundwater, the Commission agrees with Amendment 37 on the attention which needs to be given to increases in concentrations as a result of human activity. Other amendments, including Amendments 38 and 39, concerning the reference to baseline concentrations and the special assessment of trends in relation to point sources of pollution, are accepted by the Commission. Finally, Amendments 74, 75 and 79 concerning technical specifications are acceptable to the Commission, whereas others, such as Amendments 76 to 78 and 83 to 85, are acceptable in principle but require further clarification.
Amendments 108 and 109 on the possible review and repeal of the directive on nitrates cannot be accepted by the Commission. The directive on nitrates has helped to reduce pollution from farming and will continue to help in future. The Water Framework Directive, the directive on nitrates and the present proposal for a directive on groundwater are complementary and mutually supportive. In reply to the question asked, I wish to emphasise that the directive on nitrates only covers zones which are sensitive to nitrates, while the directive on groundwater will apply to the whole of Europe. Amendments 111 and 112 are not accepted by the Commission, because they introduce standards at European level for various pollutants, which the Commission believes should be left, for the time being, to the Member States.
To close, I should like to emphasise that many of the amendments are useful in clarifying the proposal and improve how it stands in relation to the Water Framework Directive and the previous directive on groundwater. I am pleased to say that the Commission is in a position to accept 31 amendments in full and a further 44 amendments in principle or in part. Nonetheless, 48 amendments are unacceptable to the Commission. I am giving the Bureau a full list of the Commission's positions on the amendments. Finally, I should like once again to thank the rapporteur for her efforts."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples