Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-199"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.9.3-199"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I usually do not thank the rapporteurs for their work. Today, however, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Callanan, particularly since he has been so unfairly attacked by his own group. I consider, like the previous speaker Mrs Myller, that Mr Callanan has a realistic, practical and sound environmentally friendly basis for his work. It is important to have proposals that aim to improve the marine environment, and we Finns know how important it is to have a living sea.
Ever since work began on this directive, and at least since 1966 when Germany and Sweden came up with their proposed legislation, we have seen good developments with regard to the environmental impact from both two-stroke and four-stroke engines. Already today, we can see a positive development and lower fuel consumption. Personally I consider, however, that sailing is the activity in this context that is the least harmful to the environment, but that is another matter.
This matter is important for us Finns. Here in the Chamber, there are now three of us from Finland and Mr Arvidsson, who almost counts as one. In our countries, there is one boat for every seven inhabitants, so this is an important source of employment for us.
It is very difficult to measure the actual effects of the proposal. I have an estimate from Finland that shows that if we implement the proposal put forward by the rapporteur, the carbon monoxide emissions in the country would fall by 1.8% and emissions of hydrocarbons by 4.3%. On the other hand, there is not expected to be any difference in emissions of sulphur dioxide and other particles. The proposal would therefore lead to a slight reduction in hydrocarbons and at the same time produce a considerable reduction in the burden on the boat sector.
I hope that the proposal for a review clause from the rapporteur and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will continue in its present form, since it is important for us to develop the boat categories. We know that this has some connection to the so-called Savolax boats, which should be familiar to the Commissioner.
I also hoped that the Commissioner would support Amendment No 22, since I believe that a committee is required. The present directive contains many technical details that apply to boat safety, and I do not believe that even we, well-informed MEPs who are present here, can cope with it properly. I understand that Amendment No 22 should be some sort of compromise. The industry is expecting this, and we should not need to dwell so long on issues that require the committee system. There are technical aspects. Just as the Commissioner said, this is in line with the principle of improved regulation.
You are concerned about Lake Constance, and we are concerned about our lakes and our Baltic. Under existing legislation, we can and shall introduce stricter provisions. These can be limited where there is reason, for example in relation to ground water. This does not need to be done with a directive, however. When we adopted directives on lawnmowers and cars, we introduced the same regulations across the entire Union. In that instance, we did not introduce something different for cars driving through the sensitive Austrian forests. It is consequently one and the same set of regulations, and afterwards limits are placed on the cars themselves with ecopoints or some other system. The same logic should apply to boats as well. I therefore support what the rapporteur and the previous speakers have said about the so-called Table 1a."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples