Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991201.11.3-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the Environment Committee and in particular, of course, the rapporteur, Mrs Breyer, for her valuable report. Thank you also for your valuable input into this discussion.
The Commission agrees with the rapporteur that Member States should take particular care to provide information to the public in any area with extended timetables for meeting the limit value of benzene. We can, therefore, accept Amendment No 19 in principal. We would propose adding to Article 6(2): "Member States should pay particular attention to providing information on concentrations, plans and programmes to the public in areas referred to in Article 3(2)". The Commission can also accept Amendment No 4 in principle. We suggest, however, replacing the words 'measured data' by the word 'concentrations'. This shows that information must be forwarded whether it was obtained by measurement or by some other method.
A third objective of both the Air Quality Framework Directive and this proposal is to ensure that Member States assess air quality in a consistent and comparable way. The Commission does not, however, accept Amendment No 13. There are technical problems with the amendment as drafted, and it is unnecessary. Member States will have to inform the Commission about measurement methods, numbers and locations of measurement stations every year. This is already stated under the general reporting requirements of Directive 96/62 and the related Council Decision 97/101 on a reciprocal exchange of information on air quality.
The Commission also does not accept Amendment No 14. It is not compatible with decisions of the first air quality daughter directive. General technical advice is that for annual average limit values, measuring close to the building line better reflects the exposure of the population. The Commission can accept Amendment No 15 in part. It considers that this proposal should be brought into line with Directive 1999/30 by inserting the words 'where there is more than one measurement station within the zone or agglomeration at least one should be placed close to traffic and at least one should be oriented to the urban background'. It thinks, however, that the additional requirement that at least half the stations should be traffic-oriented is over-prescriptive.
Finally, the Commission agrees with the intention of Amendment Nos 16 and 21. Directive 96/62 allows the use of random measurement if it can be shown to be sufficiently accurate. These amendments seek to say what that means for benzene. Amendment No 16 follow closely the first daughter directive. The Commission considers, however, that in the case of the annual average limit value for benzene, it is possible to demand a higher standard of accuracy equal to that set for continuous monitoring. It can, therefore, accept Amendment No 21 in preference to Amendment No 16.
I shall close by saying that I hope it will be possible to reach a rapid agreement on this proposal. At present, there are no Community limit values for benzene or carbon monoxide. It is essential to get this legislation in place so that proper monitoring can start, and Member States can identify the problem areas. This is a crucial factor to assure that public health is properly protected throughout the Union.
A final word to Mr Goodwill on enlargement, because you really have a point there. At the moment, it is difficult to have good information on these matters and good measurement from the applicant countries. We have to follow this very closely. We already work together with the applicant countries and we have done screening reports as you already know. So we have to do a great deal of work together with the applicant countries and you have an important point. This should be added to our list of work that we have to pursue from now on. So, thank you for that; and thank you for the discussion.
The proposal before us is the second that the Commission brings forward under the Framework Directive 96/62 on air quality assessment and management. It will set new limit values. These limit values are based on the latest advice from the World Health Organisation.
There are many areas in which the Commission can agree with the constructive amendments proposed by the Committee. We accept amendments that bring this proposal into line with the final position on the first air quality daughter directive, 1999/30, which was adopted in April this year. We, therefore, accept Amendments Nos 1 and 6.
I share the Environment Committee's view that the most critical area for discussion is the limit value for benzene and the timetables for meeting it. Benzene is difficult since there is no identifiable threshold for effects. The Commission can, in principle, accept Amendment No 2, which makes this clear. We suggest a slight rewording in line with standard terminology; that is: "Whereas benzene is a human genotoxic carcinogen and there is no identifiable threshold below which there is no risk to human health;"
Where the limit value is concerned, the Commission believes that its proposal for an annual average concentration of 5 micrograms per cubit metre is well balanced. It will provide a high level of protection, but should be generally achievable throughout the Union over the next ten years. The Commission can therefore not accept the part of Amendment No 20 that would set a limit value of 4 micrograms per cubic metre. However, it is clear that limit values for carcinogens must be kept under constant review.
The Commission will report on benzene as part of a new integrated clean air programme in 2004. As the proposal makes clear, we will then consider whether to propose a new limit value for the longer term. Although the Commission considers that its proposal is generally achievable by 2010, there are some uncertainties. This is largely due to the fact that at present there is no limit value for benzene and no consistent monitoring across the Union. It is, however, clear that the ease with which problems can be tackled depend to some extent on climate. The Commission has, therefore, asked Parliament and Council in Article 3(2) whether this should be taken into account.
Having listened to the debates so far, the Commission feels that Member States should be able to request longer time scales for meeting the limit value for benzene, where the 2010 deadline would cause serious socio-economic problems. It does, therefore, not accept Amendment No 17 nor the remaining part of Amendment No 20. We do agree, however, that conditions for obtaining a derogation should be made more clear and be tightened. On balance, the Commission now considers that it may be feasible to limit extensions to a maximum of five years. It therefore accepts most of Amendment No 22, which we prefer to Amendment No 5. It does not, however, feel that it can support a temporary limit value of 10 micrograms per cubit metre without information on feasibility. The Commission cannot accept that part of Amendment No 22. Amendment No 11 is partly related to Amendment No 22, and the Commission accepts it in part. The Commission does not accept the part of Amendment No 11 which would insert a requirement that a more stringent limit value for benzene should be proposed in 2004. The proposal already makes clear that the aim of the review will be to look at the latest evidence and, if necessary, to improve protection still further. We should leave such decisions open until we have all the evidence in front of us.
The Commission can accept Amendment No 10 which points out the importance of looking at effects on sensitive populations. The Commission agrees with the Environment Committee that indoor conditions have significant effects on health, but we do not think this proposal is the vehicle for considering how to tackle this issue. The subject is much wider than benzene and carbon monoxide and needs, therefore, to be looked at in a wider framework. From a technical point of view, Directive 96/62 defines ambient air as 'outdoor air' only. The Commission cannot therefore accept Amendments Nos 3 and 12 nor the partly related Amendment No 18. Indoor air, as I also know that Mrs Breyer is engaged in this issue, could be taken up within the framework of a new environmental action programme.
Providing good up-to-date information to the public is the key element of the new framework for improving air quality. The Commission can accept that part of Amendment No 7 which would add to the list of means that Member States might use to inform the public about air quality. It does not, however, accept that part of the amendment that would require Member States to make lists of organisations that get information and send them to the Commission. It was decided during discussions of the first daughter directive that such lists would be too bureaucratic and could even be misleading. The Commission accepts Amendment No 8, which requires better public information on carbon monoxide as an improvement to its proposal. It can also agree in part with Amendment No 9. Annex 6, part two, deals with data on pollution levels. This should actively be made available to the public in line with the Aarhus Convention. The documentation referred to in Annex 4, part three, is, however, highly technical and potentially voluminous. It should be available on request but should not be actively disseminated."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples