Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-25-Speech-1-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060925.13.1-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, first of all I would like to thank all the speakers for their important contributions to this discussion. As a closing remark, I would like to restate the importance of continued action to tackle air pollution. The adverse health impacts, lost economic productivity and damage to environmental quality are still much too great.
Some have criticised the strategy from one angle, some from another angle. Some consider that the proposed flexibility goes too far, others think that this flexibility is too little. We will be reviewing the strategy to see what progress has been made and how much further we can get towards the objectives of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.
I understand the concern expressed by those who want to see more Community pollution abatement measures so that the strategy’s objective and air quality standards can be met. I think that there is a consensus between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the measures required. In fact, the Commission has already undertaken much of the preparatory work, the fruits of which will be seen in the months to come. As a result, I do not believe that there is any need for an interinstitutional agreement in this area.
On Amendments 30 and 81, I understand the concerns of those who call for more flexibility in implementing the existing air quality legislation. However, one cannot have flexibility without weakening the legislation. I think the Commission’s proposal of five years from the entry into force of the limit values strikes the right balance and the Commission cannot support any further weakening beyond that. By way of explanation, according to the Commission proposal, the time extension will go up to the end of 2009; according to the general approach of the Council it will go up to 2010; and according to the rapporteurs’ amendment it will go up to 2013. So there is a difference on this point. It is four years plus two from the entry into force of the new directive. I understand this to be the proposal tabled before this plenary.
On Amendments 46 and 82, I should provide some further clarification about the daily limit value of PM10. This protects sensitive individuals against the impact from short-term exposure to particles in the air. It is different from the annual limit value, which provides protection to all from long-term exposure. One cannot simply substitute a more stringent annual limit value for the daily limit. This is what the health experts say. The key to ensuring compliance with both daily and annual limits is to undertake good and timely air quality assessments and to take the necessary steps to reduce emissions. It is clear that many authorities have not done this and now they have compliance problems.
On Amendments 49 and 50, the proposed concentration cap for PM2.5 is set at a level consistent with the stringency of the annual limit value for PM10, which the Commission is not proposing to change. It is also useful to remember that the Commission has proposed two ways of tackling PM2.5: the concentration cap of 25 micrograms per cubic metre and the exposure-reduction approach, where average levels in urban areas will be reduced over ten years. These methods combined will work to deliver health improvements.
Our modelling work, which underpins the thematic strategy and the air quality proposal, shows that greater health improvements can be obtained by allowing the Member States to choose where to reduce pollution levels. This is the aim of the exposure reduction targets. This flexibility will be limited if the concentration cap forces Member States to divert resources to ensure compliance in some specific hotspot regions, where few health improvements may be available. For public health, a general reduction in exposure is preferable.
In summary, on the air quality legislative proposal, I am pleased to say that the Commission can support 32 amendments, in part or in principle. I shall give Parliament’s Secretariat a list detailing the Commission’s position on the amendments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples