Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-13-Speech-1-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061113.17.1-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, I have followed your debate with interest and I am pleased to note that in principle you have endorsed the holistic approach favoured by the Commission. On the other hand, it is clear that this issue is a complex one, requiring urgent action in many areas. It is also clear that a range of different opinions has emerged and that further analysis and clarification are required.
The Commission agrees with the committee's wish to integrate the fundamental definition of ‘good environmental status’ (Amendment 80) directly into the Directive.
The Commission nevertheless has definite problems with the list of definitions proposed by the Committee on the Environment. Many of these definitions are based on the factors influencing the marine environment and the threats to it, rather than the quality of the ecosystem. This is a dangerous approach because some potential risks and threats may be omitted or, on the other side of the coin, unduly emphasised. Even more importantly, if we monitor only the influencing factors, the EU will not be able to move away from the current fragmented approach on managing the marine environment towards a more integrated approach, which would cover all of the factors as well as their mutual impact on the marine environment.
Lastly, with regard to financial matters, (Amendments 19 and 74), there are a number of EU funding mechanisms from which the Member States can benefit, for example the Structural Funds, LIFE+ and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. Consequently, it is not necessary to create any special funding mechanisms.
Honourable Members, the debate has touched on the complexity of this whole issue, including the fact that the marine environment receives pollution from the atmosphere, and that the quality of the marine environment depends to a large extent on tackling climate change. It has also been mentioned that some seas have not been included, as in the case of the Black Sea, and naturally the approach adopted by Romania and Bulgaria will fundamentally change the situation and open up fresh possibilities. As regards the Arctic Ocean, owing to its geographical situation it is not possible to change the Commission’s position significantly and nor is it possible to create an independent strategy for what is an exceptionally sensitive and important environment here, albeit in no way connected directly to EU territory.
Mr President, honourable Members, I shall pass on the list of Commission opinions on the Amendments to Parliament’s Services.
I should like to refer to some of the main amendments in more detail.
In the timetable for implementation (Amendments 20, 24, 31, 32, 35 and 69), the Commission chose the year 2021 as the date by which the Member States have to achieve 'good environmental status' of their marine environments. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposed an earlier date.
Although the Commission would like ‘good environmental status’ to be achieved quickly, the committee’s date is not in my view a realistic one. The Commission's proposal addresses firstly the need to improve our understanding of the marine environment and the threats it faces, and secondly the need for action. In order that we may find the most appropriate, and cost-effective, measures to protect the marine environment, we must equip ourselves with the essential knowledge and skills. Under these conditions, to bring the deadlines forward would be counter-productive.
This is clear, especially in view of the parallels with the current Water Framework Directive, to which this directive is closely related. In the Water Framework Directive, successfully adopted in 2000 due to the fact that Mrs Lienemann was the rapporteur, ‘good environmental status’ is called for by 2015, that is to say, 15 years after the adoption of the directive. The Marine Directive should operate in the same way.
In view of the extent of the sea area addressed by the Marine Strategy Directive, and in view of the size of the task, no one should be in any doubt that our proposed timetable is highly ambitious. The date proposed by the Commission in the directive, 2021, will moreover coincide with the first review of the River Basin Management Plans under the EU Water Framework Directive, allowing synergies on the further implementation of both directives.
Apart from this, the Commission believes that it would not be practical to call on the Member States to ‘achieve good environmental status by 2021’ as the Committee on the Environment is proposing in the Directive. Nor would it be realistic. The measures that must be taken as part of the Marine Strategy will be up and running by 2018 according to the proposed timetable. Some measures will not deliver immediate results because it will take time for some of the ecosystems to react to the measures. Overall progress towards good environmental status must be shown, however, which is why the Commission has proposed the idea of 'achieving good environmental status'.
The Commission is prepared to support the insertion of an article stressing the importance of marine protected areas (Amendments 27, 39, 62 and 72). Such an article should ideally be based on Article 6 of the Water Framework Directive on protected areas.
The Commission is also prepared to back the idea that in order to meet the objectives of the Directive it may be necessary to create further protected areas or even closed nature reserves. It cannot accept, however, the proposal from the Committee on the Environment for the mandatory creation of marine protected areas as part of the implementation of the proposed Directive. Protected marine areas should be created only when they can contribute directly towards achieving a ‘good environmental status’. They should not simply be created as an end in themselves, but should be viewed as a means rather than an end."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples