Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.12.3-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, thank you first of all to Commissioner Wallström and Mr Davies for the good work they have done on this matter. Specifically where ozone is concerned, we are of course in an odd situation. High up in the atmosphere, the ozone layer is too thin, which causes problems, including health problems. Down here on earth, on the other hand, the concentration is, of course, far too strong. I think, however, that we have obtained a good result from the conciliation negotiations and, in actual fact, probably a better result than many of us had dared to hope for when we listened to some of the Member States’ negative attitudes towards solving the air quality problem with which we are concerned here. Together with the Directive on National Emission Ceilings, for which Mrs Myller, here beside me, was rapporteur, this directive makes an important contribution to securing a lower concentration of ozone in Europe and, especially, in the large cities of Europe.
I think it is good that we have been given a starting point in the form of the WHO’s assessments of the existing risks to health and to the environment. We have got some partial goals established, or target values for 2010, and these must be met. However, it is naturally cause for concern that, for many years, we shall be obliged to accept that the WHO’s thresholds are being exceeded to a certain extent on a certain number of days per year. I therefore think it good that we also obtained agreement to there having to be some more long-term objectives, in terms of which the WHO’s target values must be complied with. What was agreed was not quite so precise as we should have liked here in Parliament. A reference point was set for 2020. Many of us should have liked to have seen 2020 become a more definite deadline for meeting the WHO’s recommendations. I also believe it is good that the Member States should not only be obliged to prepare practical programmes for achieving the targets, but that obligations should also be imposed in terms of informing people about the programmes that are being prepared and about the results – both positive and negative – that are obtained, just as we have acquired a number of rules as to when people are to be notified that there are problems with the unduly strong concentration of ozone – both people in general and people belonging to groups which are especially sensitive to problems in this area.
Finally, I would say that I also think it is good that we have got the candidate countries on board so that they can be involved early on. We can of course now look forward to the directive’s coming into force before the first candidate countries accede to the EU so that, even at the time of their accession, they will have to comply with the obligations imposed by the directive upon existing Member States. I hope that, by means of this directive, we can prevent and reduce the harmful effects of the unduly high concentrations of ozone upon people’s health and upon vegetation and that today might prove to have been a good day for future air quality in Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples