Mr President, those who work on environmental issues and on a variety of measures, programmes, conventions, items of legislation etc are often surprised and impatient at how slow the process is and at how difficult it is to specify in concrete terms how objectives in terms of protecting the environment and public health are to be formulated and implemented. That is also how it has been with the Sixth Environment Action Programme. First of all, it was not certain that we should obtain any action programme at all. When we then saw the Commission’s proposal, we thought that it was extremely vague and lacked both qualitative and quantitative objectives and timetables. An environment action programme must naturally establish environmental objectives if there is to be any point at all in having a programme. Mrs Myller, as rapporteur, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have genuinely tried to improve the Sixth Environment Action Programme. I wish to thank the rapporteur for this and also thank other fellow MEPs for their valuable cooperation. When we are now about to adopt a view on the Council’s position at second reading, we see that the Council has in fact introduced a very great many of Parliament’s amendments. When it comes to specifying deadlines etc, things are still extremely sluggish, however. We must now take the opportunity of changing this by voting in favour of the committee’s amendments and the compromise amendments tabled by quite a few political groups. The programme’s overarching aim is to decouple, for example, environmental pressures from economic growth. Up until now, the improvements that have been made have been offset by increased production and consumption. Another general principle is to supply the basis and the priorities for sustainable development and to apply the precautionary and substitution principles. So that it is possible to do this, I should like to recommend all MEPs to vote in favour of Amendment No 44, which of course requires it to be discovered by no later than 2003 which forms of EU aid run directly counter to our aims, that is to say have a negative effect on the environment, and requires the year to be established by which this aid must be abolished. Where chemicals and pesticides are concerned, I think that all the amendments tabled on this issue are sound. The chemicals organisations’ umbrella organisation, CEFIC, has taken the view that the amendments are not in accordance with the report on chemicals strategy. I maintain that this view has just been plucked out of thin air. It is sad that such an incomplete and one-sided analysis has been carried out. As rapporteur for the White Paper, I can assure you that these amendments are sound and that they strengthen the Sixth Environment Action Programme. When it comes to the proposal from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, we should, in common with Mrs Hulthén, have liked the programme to have been more vigorous and have liked to get more measures through. The proposal is not now to be altered, however. There is so much we must do and agree upon within these institutions. That is why I would definitely wish to reject the ’s proposal and call upon everyone to vote in favour of the proposal by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and of the compromise amendments that have been tabled.

Political group: Verts-ALE