Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-10-Speech-1-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071210.16.1-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive that Parliament should adopt at its second reading is extremely important because it is the first directive that forces Member States to have an environmental strategy to restore the seas and oceans to a good ecological status. When we looked at it, at its first reading, we stressed its importance given that recent scientific reports show that the survival of fish stocks and the biodiversity of the seas and oceans are under particular threat. Some people are even saying that in fifty years’ time there will be no more fish. Furthermore, the oceans play a fundamental role in regulating the climate and by polluting them we are in danger of diminishing this regulating function and accentuating the negative effects of climate change. It was therefore urgent and necessary for the European Union, having adopted the water framework directive, particularly regarding freshwater, to swiftly address the issue of seawater.
At its first reading, we demonstrated our willingness to improve the existing text. First I will go over the structural points of this directive and the existing texts. The first aim is to restore our seas and oceans to a good ecological status. The second is to define the necessary steps to be taken by each Member State: firstly, to collaborate within Marine Regions or Sub-Regions; then to define the state of the water and of biodiversity in these seas; then to define a good ecological status and some priority environmental objectives; and finally to draw up a plan of action and some measures to be taken. We were therefore positive about this directive, but felt it did not go far enough in the state it came to us from the Commission.
There are a number of points we have stressed. The first is the need to make this directive tough. Tough, both as regards resources and as regards results. That has certainly been the most positive point of our collaboration with the Council and Commission: the directive is tough.
The second point is that we hope that good ecological status will be defined stringently, so that restoring this asset is not just all talk. We have largely been satisfied in that the criteria for good ecological status have been extended to include pressure from all pollutants affecting an ecosystem and the need to evaluate them and reduce their impact with this aim of restoring good ecological status.
The third point is that Parliament is very keen on setting up protected marine areas, the types of reserve that should play a key role in restoring the diversity of this biotope and particularly in reconstituting fish stocks. We would have liked a text that was more restrictive, more stringent, tougher about the need for these reserves, but the principle is still there; at any rate, the need for them to be sufficiently large to play a role in restoring biodiversity is still there.
Finally, Parliament wanted the scope of the directive to be extended. In particular we wanted coastal waters to be properly taken into account, and we did not want any uncertainty to remain about the need to take account of all tidal waters. At any rate, for a lot of them this has been the case. We would of course have liked a slightly better definition of the land covered by tidal waters, but the text we have is adequate.
I would like to stress the importance of the consistency of strategies by geographical area: we would have liked the text to be tougher, but the need for consistency is affirmed.
Finally, our fellow Members from the Baltic wanted the Baltic to be a sort of pilot project enabling us to move more quickly, in view of the urgency of the situation. They were not completely satisfied because the tradition in our institutions is not to single out any particular area. Nevertheless, the idea of a pilot area has been kept, and I am sure the Commission would choose the Baltic to be this area.
Lastly, there is the matter of timescale: the main thing for us was that the directive should be binding, even if it meant slightly lengthening the amount of time the Member States were given to achieve it. This was the compromise that was settled on in the end. The deadline is 2020, but the Member States must not drag their feet because they need to have the directive transposed by 2010. Anyway I would invite them not to waste time because, under the water framework directive, the delay is mounting up and our seas cannot wait."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples