Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.8.3-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, thank you for your interventions and, of course, first of all I would like to commend the rapporteur, Mrs Myller, for her excellent work in preparing the report in a very short time.
We cannot accept those amendments that seek to bind the Commission to producing proposals by set dates, for example, Amendments Nos 49, 76, 85, 123, 189, 198. It is always the Commission's intention to use the mid-term review of the programme as the point at which the implementing measures for the programme should be prepared. There are annual reports about implementation, but so far we have not made a big case out of these, although we have started to have these name, fame and shame seminars, to do more to make it public, and we warmly welcome Parliament's intention to take part and to know more: we are willing to do everything possible to help in this.
I will not comment on all the amendments, because we have already left a note with our comments, but urban areas need to be stressed more and we welcome the spirit of Amendment No 207. Of the 297 amendments being proposed, the Commission actually supports more than half in full, or in part, or in principle, but we cannot accept 145.
Finally, we welcome this opinion. We feel that it will be an invaluable contribution to creating an operational, dynamic and ultimately successful sixth Environment Action Programme.
There were actually two choices after I decided to say ‘yes’ to the question in the hearing about whether I wanted to present a sixth Environment Action Programme: either the choice of being criticised for being too ambitious and thus unrealistic, or being too detailed and thus not visionary enough. I have spent many sleepless nights thinking about whether it was a good answer to say ‘yes, we should make a sixth Environment Action Programme’ since it has been heavily criticised.
On the other hand, I expected that, because there was a global assessment of the fifth programme, and what did it teach us? We learned from that programme that implementation was not good enough. We have a solid base of more than 200 legal acts in the environment. We already have ambitious targets and deadlines in programmes, but they have not all been met. There is a lack of understanding from different institutions and from Member States in actually wanting to carry out the necessary work for the environment. This is what we learned.
I wanted to make a short programme: it should have been shorter, but guess what would have happened then? We would have added, and Parliament and Council would have added a number of details and included even more issues in the environmental programme. That is always the risk if you want to make a short. My collaborator said that it was not possible to bring in all the important issues and make the programme shorter. There is the risk of making it a shopping list, and I wanted to avoid that. I wanted to make it an action programme. I wanted to point out what is necessary to mobilise, on a very broad scale, all different stake-holders in society, and to mention the actions necessary to meet the objectives set in this programme to show that, during a period of ten years, these kinds of actions are necessary.
Of course, I am not against targets, timetables or deadlines. We need them, but they must be based on sound science, on the latest facts from these different sectors and policy areas. I appreciate that we have broad support for the priorities and the structure of this programme. We have the problem that this is a codecision procedure, so we have a difference between the first and second part and I do not know how to deal with that. It is a pity that it exists, because you need to see the full text to understand the way we think about these issues: so that is partly an explanation of the problems we experience.
It has to come in the right order, however: the targets and deadlines should, of course, come in the automatic strategies, in the follow-up. However, I wanted the programme to describe the priorities and stick to the priorities, not to make it a shopping list, not to add everything about bathing water quality or the noise problem, etc., instead to stick to these priorities. We have so many good amendments that actually enhance this programme and we welcome those amendments that clarify the text and add some precision to the actions being proposed: I include Amendment No 77 on allowing environmental criteria to be taken into account in public purchasing. This is what we are working on at the moment.
I appreciate the reference to giving priority to young people in the provision of information, emphasised in Amendment No 88. We have not been able to say ‘yes’ to all the excellent amendments about information and education to young people. We do not have the competence, or the resources – it has to be up to the Member States to carry this out – but it is a very important issue and I want to underline that. The setting of targets should be seen as part of the process, getting results by involving stake-holders, because we do not have many specific proposals for these targets and timetables. It was the same in the Council when we asked what kind of targets do you mean? Give us some examples – I got two, of which one was very general and the other already known to us. Of course, we could have used concepts such as 'ecological footprint' or 'factor 4' or 'factor 10', but then the programme would have been slightly different. It must be based on sound science and facts and it must be achievable and viable.
I would like to say something about thematic strategies. We have proposed the use of thematic strategies for defining the set of measures that will be needed to tackle six complex and multi-dimensional problems. The Commission fully understands and we strongly support the wish of Parliament to be fully involved and consulted on the content of the thematic strategies. That has been our objective all the time. I welcome the inclusion of an Article that defines thematic strategies and I can support the spirit, if not the letter, of Amendment No 66, because a thematic strategy may be a framework directive, but it could also be a combination of a directive and other actions. We should not specify that in every case there should be a framework directive. We have to keep it open, to have a strategy which includes the possibility of proposing a framework directive.
There is also this question about timetables and again we must remember that this is a strategic programme that lays down the priorities for the next 10 years, not a comprehensive work programme. There is no link made between new actions proposed and the resources available to do the job. The Commission will produce the necessary proposals, but they need to be of good quality and it is also important to underline that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples