Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.9.3-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the directive under discussion is one of a series designed to change Community legislation regarding different types of engine equipment, even including lawnmowers, to meet improved standards for noise and exhaust gas. In this regard we must thank the rapporteur, Mr Callanan, for a job well done.
Harmonisation is reasonable and necessary, as some Member States, for example, Germany, Austria and Sweden, have already decided to bring in or plan their own legislation regarding exhaust limits for recreational craft. Harmonisation is necessary for trade, but it is at least as important to fix exhaust norms at the same minimum level in all Member States. In this way we can achieve ecological benefits and general well-being.
The rapporteur thinks it inappropriate that craft built for personal use should be included in the scope of this directive, as this would not contribute to market harmonisation. This argument relating to the market is certainly a valid one. However, the second half of the directive that deals with people’s well-being as an aim will not materialise in the case of people living close to these sorts of self-built craft if noise limits, for example, are freely allowed to be exceeded.
It is a dubious notion, however, at the very least that different noise and exhaust limits should be applied according to whether a boat is meant for internal waters or the sea. Firstly, the amendments tabled with this in mind by my esteemed colleagues Mrs Schleicher, Mrs Flemming, Mr Wieland, Mrs Emilia Müller and Mr Bernd Lange are unrealistic in practice, as the same vessel is often taken from one water system to another, either by road or by driving it along canals or water channels. This I have done many times myself – I am a keen yachtswoman. Secondly, it is inconsistent with the idea of market harmonisation: if Amendment No 13 were approved, it would already have to be known when a boat was being manufactured whether it was to be used in fresh or salt water.
Thirdly, the ecological state of the seas in the Community area is already so bad that the argument regarding the vulnerability of inland waters does not stand up, because the converse of what these same colleagues of mine are saying is that it is fine to race around even a little more in the open sea – just go ahead! Unfortunately this is not true.
The report states with regard to vulnerable waters that the authorities in Member States may issue more stringent regulations than what is contained in this directive and that, I believe, is the correct way to proceed. In my country, for example, we have already been able to ban the use of motor vessels at local level in certain lakes which it has been seen especially justifiable to protect.
There are more than 182 000 lakes in Finland. Of Europe’s hundred largest lakes, half are in Finland. There are 647 rivers. Finland has 314 000 kilometres of coastline, which is about eight times the earth’s circumference. For Finland these natural features are a source of wealth that we have traditionally taken good care of, and it is therefore unnecessary under this directive to establish more stringent emission limits for our waters than for other areas. Instead, we should urge the Commission to issue proposals for emission limits common to all waters now being decided to be made more stringent."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples