Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-336"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.18.2-336"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for her work on this important proposal. I know you have a lot to do on the Sixth Environmental Action Programme and other things. The proposal for a directive on national emission ceilings aims to tackle acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone simultaneously. It is therefore highly significant for two of the four priority areas identified in the Commission's proposal for a Sixth Environmental Action Programme: nature and bio-diversity and health and the environment. There are still important areas of the Union where nature and biodiversity suffer from the impact of acid rain eutrophication and citizens are affected by ground level ozone, as has already been commented on by Members of Parliament. We must solve these problems.
Amendments Nos 10 and 13 seek to reinstate the emission ceilings originally proposed by the Commission. In their common position the Member States endorse both the long-term goals and the interim objectives of the proposal. They have re-examined the commitments that they made in the Gothenburg Protocol and have signed up to more action. But they all consider that there are uncertainties and other factors that may change the picture in a few years time: energy plans, accession and so on. This is why Member States have agreed to look again at these issues in 2004. The Commission can accept this as a first step on the understanding that our aim in 2004 will be to make up the shortfall.
I am very concerned that it would be exceedingly difficult to have successful discussions on Amendments Nos 10 and 13 with the Council. There are different requirements for each Member State and fifteen points of view in the Council. The Commission therefore does not accept Amendments Nos 10 and 13. The Commission can, however, accept Amendments Nos 11 and 12. We will indeed have to look again at the Commission's original proposal for emission ceilings in 2004 and decide whether it would be better to share the burden differently in the light of more recent developments. Amendments Nos 11 and 12 explain this very clearly.
In answer to Mr de Roo’s questions, I want to say that the Commission has completed two studies on volatile organic compounds. We are now doing preparatory work and expect to be able to discuss potential proposals with experts actually before the summer. That is perhaps important information. As regards costs, and how far the Member States, Mrs Jackson, are willing to pay the costs? As you know costs were discussed at enormous length in the Council. Member States believe we can meet the target and they have signed up to what they feel they can do now. They want to look again at the costs in 2004 before signing up to more. Of course the costs are higher for some countries than for others because of where the pollution emissions come from. All emissions are not equal because of different weather patterns. That was also noted in the discussions in Council.
As far as the remaining amendments are concerned, Amendments Nos 1 and 6 are related to Amendment No 10. The Council inserted the word "broadly" in recognition of the fact that the emission ceilings of the common position will not go all the way to meeting the goals for 2010 and the Commission does not therefore accept these amendments. Amendment No 4 would set dates by which the long-term goals of this directive should be met and it is still the Commission's view that, with our present knowledge, any date would be mere guesswork and we should not put it in a legal text. The Commission must therefore reject Amendment No 4. I hope we will have a clearer forecast when we review the directive in 2004, but then – if you will forgive the joke – some emission figures will have to be taken out of the air.
The Commission agrees wholeheartedly that emissions from international shipping are important and must be tackled effectively. We must also look at the effect of aircraft emissions. The Commission can accept fully Amendment No 2 and can accept in part and in principle Amendment No 3. We would however prefer to quote Directive 99/30 more directly. We cannot accept Amendment No 5, nor the first part of Amendment No 7. Emissions from international maritime traffic and cruising aircraft cannot be assigned to individual Member States. We must instead follow up action already taken in the International Maritime Organisation and decide what else is needed. The Commission can accept Amendment No 8 in part and in principle. Bringing forward proposals on economic instruments is something that we will look at as part of our review of the directive in 2004. We can accept in part and in principle the second part of Amendment No 7 and Amendment No 9. Again, the Commission cannot accept the requirement to bring forward proposals. All the issues highlighted by Parliament should be considered during the review. I thank Parliament for its time and look forward to progress on this very important dossier."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples