MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY (13759/05)
Letter from Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister
for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Chairman
I am writing to inform you of the outcome of
the European Parliament's first reading of this draft Directive
which took place on 13 November. This is in advance of the Finnish
Presidency seeking political agreement at the Environment Council
on 18 December. Our policy is for an ambitious but realistic Directive,
consistent with the legislation on the marine environment which
we are to introduce next year, and which delivers tangible, cost
effective benefits to Europe's marine environment.
Over 80 amendments were proposed by the Parliament.
The key amendments were:
— A legal requirement on Member States
to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for their marine waters,
and that this should be achieved by 2017 rather than 2021 as originally
proposed in the draft Directive. We are prepared to discuss the
issues with colleagues in other Member States, including at Council,
but much turns on getting the definition of Good Environmental
Status right.
— A definition of GES that seeks to
replicate conditions which tend towards pristine. As part of this,
the European Parliament has proposed a series of targets and objectives
some of which appear to be unachievable or achievable only at
disproportionate cost. These include potentially unacceptable
and unnecessary limitations on normal shipping and energy production
operations. Our aim is to achieve GES through an ecosystem approach.
This means managing human impacts in a way which preserves the
functioning of the ecosystem whilst at the same time enabling
the provision of goods and services on a sustainable basis. Related
to this, we are arguing for a risk-based approach to focus on
the most significant threats that the seas face.
— A requirement on Member States to
act jointly to produce a single Marine Strategy for marine regions
in order to achieve GES for their waters. On the face of it, this
could simply drive Member States to lowest common denominator
approaches and prove impractical. I favour placing a clear onus
and responsibility on individual Member States along with a clear
requirement to co-operate where necessary.
— A provision that the Directive is
without prejudice to Member State competence in existing international
institutional structures. We support this since we do not want
to change current competency arrangements, notably in Europe's
Regional Seas Conventions.
— A requirement for the Commission
to come forward with criteria and standards for good ocean governance,
including measures to protect the Arctic and measures to improve
the status of waters beyond those of Member States. We favour
action by Member States, including through EU channels, to take
protective measures and the UK is taking a leading role in international
fora on this. But this proposal from the European Parliament would
extend the Community's powers in a seemingly unnecessary, impractical
and ad hoc way.
More generally, the European Parliament has
been helpful in highlighting in their proposed amendments the
threat of climate change and the importance of integration between
environmental and fisheries policy. We fully support these approaches.
I am also pleased that the Parliament has recognised the importance
we attach to carbon capture and storage.
Official level discussions between Member States
have been proceeding well and relatively few significant differences
of opinion remain. This should enable the Environment Council
to focus on the key issues, notably the issue that I have highlighted
above, with a view to reaching political agreement on the Directive.
I am very optimistic that we will secure the UK's interests. Discussions
will then start with the European Parliament.
1 December 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Ben Bradshaw
MP
Your letter of 1 December 2006 on the above
Proposal was considered by Sub-Committee D at its meeting of 13
December 2006.
We appreciate your analysis of the European
Parliament's First Reading but regret that you were unable to
provide more comprehensive details of the likely shape of discussions
in Council, particularly as it is clear that discussion has moved
some distance away from the original Commission text. We would
be grateful therefore if you could forward the Common Position
to us as soon as possible after the Council meeting, indicating
at the same time how you intend to proceed in relation to reaching
agreement with the European Parliament on the vexed issue of defining
Good Environmental Status.
Against this background, we are prepared to
release the Proposal from scrutiny. We trust, however, that the
Government will seek a binding definition of Good Environmental
Status, which is ambitious in terms of protecting the marine environment
but not over-burdensome in terms of cost; and in the future the
Government will keep us regularly informed of the progress of
negotiations on this crucial dossier.
13 December 2006
Letter from Ben Bradshaw to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 13 December 2006
informing me that the Committee has released the above proposal
from scrutiny.
I am pleased to enclose the Common Position agreed
at the Environment Council on 18 December. You will already have
seen a copy of my letter of 13 December to Michael Connarty MP
on the amendments that I expected the Council to adopt. I can
confirm that these were adopted. I also agree that the definition
of good environmental status (GES) should be binding provided
that it is realistic.
Second reading will take place during the German
Presidency. My officials are currently considering areas of overlap
and difference between the Council's and Parliament's definition
and descriptors of GES. We will be discussing this in coming weeks
with key stakeholders to consider how the different positions
might be reconciled. I will keep you informed of progress made
at second reading.
11 January 2007
|
