Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-09-Speech-1-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050509.15.1-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we have in our hands a strategic directive, because it reflects the basic problem with the EU environmental policy: that is, the enormous differences in circumstances between the Member States. We must therefore react to it in an appropriate manner.
I myself come from a country where there are 187 888 lakes. Obviously, we would be frustrated if the measures applied were the same as in Luxembourg, for example. Consequently, it is important, both as far as common sense is concerned and from the point of view of the environment, that we focus on the objectives, but leave the means for achieving them to the Member States. Fortunately, the proposal also offers the Member States more latitude in determining for themselves which beaches are to be ‘EU beaches’. In this respect, the definition of bathing waters in the common position is fine. In my country, that will mean reducing the administrative burden on the authorities without quality control suffering as a result. We need this bathing water directive: the current directive is obsolete, and the reformed version will reflect the state of the water, in terms of hygiene, more effectively than the present one does.
There is, however, much in the amendments made by Parliament that I cannot agree with. Tightening the deadline from 2015 to 2011 will be problematic because of the timetables for the implementation of the water framework directive. What is most irksome about the amendments made by Parliament, however, is the plan to delete the satisfactory/sufficient classification for bathing water. We should remember that that was an unconditional requirement for achieving the common position of the Council. The same problem applies to the standardisation of values for coastal waters and fresh waters. There are scientific criteria for the different values, and they do not increase the risk to bathers.
The compromise proposal drafted in Parliament is more of a step in the right direction. If the ‘sufficient’ category is not adopted, there is a danger that the entire project will fail in the Council. This would be very regrettable as far as the environment is concerned. Some Member States, of course, would certainly prefer to let the project fail rather than agree to more stringent values."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples