Brussels, 10/03/2009 (Agence Europe) - In order to protect air quality, water and soil, the European Parliament supports both the simplification and strengthening of legislation on coordinated industrial pollution reduction in the EU, at lower costs and with the necessary flexibility to avoid too much counter-productive bureaucracy and take specific local needs into account. MEPs believe that these objectives should be reached through increased document references (briefings) in an effort to take into account the best available technologies when granting pollution permits, setting minimum emission value limits for industrial installations and high level guarantees for environmental protection.
The European Parliament expressed this idea on 10 March in Strasbourg and followed the line of its rapporteur, Holger Krahmer (ALDE, Germany) by a large majority (402 votes for, 189 against, with 54 abstentions), to recast the proposal into a single text of seven European directives and integrated pollution control. Implementation of this essential text covering 52,000 industrial plants currently leaves a lot to be desired because of the high number of authorisations granted whilst disregarding the best pollution reduction technologies available and it is this stumbling block that needs to be rectified. Holger Krahmer and Stavros Dimas, the European Commissioner, were quick to point this out before the vote. The compromise ratified in a first reading by the European Parliament retains the main guidelines of the text voted for by the Environment Committee in January (EUROPE 9825). It goes further than the European Commission's proposal, particularly with regard to the setting of binding minimum value limits constituting the “European safety net”. Dimas said that he was able to support this concept. The amended text also contains many derogations, particularly for a lot of major combustion installations in sectors other than electricity and heating, such as oil refineries, steel production sites and chemical products. The Greens/EFA are dissatisfied with the initiative. (A.N./trans/rh)
Attempts by the EPP-ED and many British MEPs (invoking the imperative of providing assurances over energy supply) to get back to the bitterly negotiated compromise in opposition to minimum standards, were in vain, to the satisfaction of the PES, which did not submit any amendments and to that of the ALDE and Greens/EFA. The request for postponing the vote formulated by the ALDE to better examine the application modalities for this future legislation was rejected.
MEPs agreed on stricter value limits than those proposed by the European Commission for some categories of specific fuel installations and other pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides NOx), dust and carbon monoxide CO). The setting of minimum value limits is expected to be done in committee procedures, explain MEPs.
Parliament supports the ceiling on values proposed by the Commission for emissions from farmer, on the basis of the impact study for different species. To the great annoyance of the EPP-EP which sees these provisions having a double role together with other legislation (framework directive on water, the directive on nitrate pollution) and increased bureaucracy, Christa Klass (EPP-ED, Germany) criticised the “complicated rules for small farms while the directive should apply to industrial giants”. An EPP-ED amendment was, however, accepted which excludes slurry from the legislation. Amendments from the same group were rejected, which aimed to get rid of any reference to the draft direction on soil protection, monitoring requirements and delays, as well as obligations on site restoration after closure.
MEPs worked towards improving pollution surveillance, as well as better information from the public through an amendment to oblige member states to make immediately accessible on the internet, comparisons on the levels of effective emissions and those linked to better available technology.
The rapporteur was delighted that this plenary compromise vote enables the outgoing Parliament to define clear guidelines, without leaving the new parliament the poisoned chalice of a “fractious debate”. (A.N./trans/rh)