Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991201.14.3-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all, of course, to thank the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and also rapporteur Sjöstedt for the work he has done on elucidating the changes to Annexes 3 and 4 of the Helsinki Convention.
As you know, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection adopted the report on 19 October 1999. I think it is good that we have had the opportunity to discuss this in the House today. It is with satisfaction, of course, that I note that the rapporteur welcomes the proposed changes to the Convention. The proposal in fact moves that the changes to the two Annexes should be adopted by the European Community.
As mentioned, Annex 3 is mainly concerned with agricultural discharges. The proposed changes are, in fact, aimed at reducing discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticides used in agriculture. The purpose of the other Annex is to reduce discharges from ships.
Regarding Mr Sjöstedt’s concern that the Commission would not look adequately at the changes that need to be made and his concern about the effects which this would necessarily have on EU legislation, he is worrying unnecessarily. There are no major problems. The Commission has naturally made sure that we can make these changes and shall do so. If the Commission signs a Convention, we must also ensure that we can honour the commitments in such a Convention, something which will not cause any problems.
There was also a Finnish front here which I have to say I agree with. I think there is an important link with the northern dimension and that we should ideally be marrying the Helsinki Convention and the work that is being done under the heading of the northern dimension. I therefore think that remarks of this kind are in order. The Commission is also working along those lines, that is to say to ensure that we can coordinate, and benefit from, the work that is being done in different places. This can reinforce the environmental work being done in connection with the Baltic. In addition, the Helsinki Convention ought to support the work by means of sustainable development for the Baltic. Discussions to this effect have begun. We in the Commission are therefore aware of the need for increased environmental cooperation in the Baltic region. We are convinced that the changes to the Convention constitute an important, albeit small, contribution towards achieving that goal.
The report criticises the way in which the adoption procedure was carried out. The rapporteur maintains that the changes had already been adopted on 1 January 1999 and that the work carried out in the European Parliament was therefore meaningless. It is true that the Convention’s executive body, HELCOM adopted the changes on 29 March 1998 and that the parties to the Treaty were given the deadline of 1 January 1999 to produce changes. However, the Commission lodged an incidental objection to make it possible to consult with the European Parliament and the Council. That objection still applies. The Commission’s interpretation of the situation is therefore that, as long as the Commission has not withdrawn its incidental objection, the changes have not come into force. The consultation procedure is therefore valid, and I should also like to thank you in the European Parliament for your contributions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples