Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-10-Speech-1-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071210.17.1-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the compromise on the Air Quality Directive is primarily the result of successful team work. I wish to emphasise this at the outset. My thanks especially to all my fellow Members who have taken an active part in defining the text of this Directive, particularly to the rapporteurs, Mrs Weisgerber of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and Mrs Corbey of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, as well as Mrs Hassi of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. I should also like to thank the Commission for its valuable assistance and the Portuguese Council Presidency, which has made a vital contribution to this good result as an open and constructive negotiating partner.
Secondly, conditions in the European Union and between the Member States vary enormously. I have already mentioned meteorological and geographical conditions. However, it is principally the widely differing population, traffic and industry densities that have the greatest influence. More consideration must be given to this when implementing future legislation.
Thirdly, in order to reduce air pollution even further, neither short-term actions such as road blocks and traffic bans, nor stricter, paper-based limits will lead to success.
Parliament greatly welcomes the Commission’s statement, to be published together with the new Directive in the Official Journal in 2008, on the adoption of measures at source. Air pollution can be reduced only in the long term and at EU level specifically by strengthening cross-border measures. The policy on sources, which has been given little consideration to date, should be the main focus in future, particularly private combustion plants, the shipping industry and also agriculture.
The compromise puts the EU’s future air quality policy on a sound footing. The new Directive maintains the balance between ambitious targets and limits and the necessary flexibility for implementation in the Member States. In addition, the focus is directed more towards exposure and increased awareness of the need for measures at the sources of pollution.
Let me first outline the key elements of the compromise. There has been decisive progress, which is the intention with the amendment of air quality legislation, in the regulation of the finest PM
particulates. In the opinion of all the experts, the finest particulates originating exclusively from human sources pose the greatest risks to human health. Fine PM
dust particulates less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter and therefore not visible to the naked eye can penetrate the lungs and lead to serious, long-term respiratory diseases. Focussing on the smallest particles in European policy on air quality is therefore long overdue.
In the United States, there has been a strict PM
limit since 1997. The United States is a good 10 years ahead of the EU with regard to legislation in this sector. However, with all due respect for US air quality policy, I should like to state that we cannot simply copy what the United States has been doing for years. We have completely different conditions in Europe, particularly with regard to population and traffic density.
The demand by environmental groups for the immediate introduction of a strict PM
limit is unrealistic. Data in Europe is not strong and measurement experience is inadequate – not good conditions for a hasty introduction of a limit. The Council and Parliament have been in agreement since the outset on regulating PM
in two phases. Firstly, there should be a target from 2010 onwards and then a limit from 2015 onwards of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. Parliament has constantly been lobbying the Commission as well as campaigning against the Council’s opposition for a stricter value for PM
. It is therefore to Parliament’s credit that today we want to reduce the limit for PM
to 20 micrograms per cubic meter in a second stage in 2020.
In addition to a target and limit for PM
an exposure concentration obligation of 20 micrograms will be introduced for the Member States in 2015. This has the aim of reducing background concentration and will have a positive effect on the protection of human health particularly in urban conurbations. The model proposed by the European Parliament for reducing concentrations of PM
by 2020 has likewise been implemented. There is a differentiation according to the Member States and greater account will be taken of inputs.
As regards PM
a majority in Parliament lobbied at first reading for an ambitious annual limit, which is also better correlated to the daily limit in force. The position of the Council and the Commission not to touch the current limits at all has won recognition in the negotiations. With a three-year extension to the deadline for PM
the deadline extension is guaranteed until 2012 after the new Directive comes into force for local authorities, which have not been able to keep to the limits owing to their geographical position or meteorological conditions, despite all demonstrable efforts.
Even though improving the quality of the ambient air will also be a major challenge for the EU in the future, I should like to raise three points that in my view should be noted when implementing this Directive and when revising the legislation in 2013.
Firstly, the pollution of ambient air has fallen drastically in recent decades. As a new study by the European Environment Agency shows, around 50% of fine dust emissions were reduced in the period between 1990 and 2004 – therefore even before the introduction of the PM
limits. This has been achieved less through legislation than through technical progress."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"10"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples