Mr President, Commissioner Wallström, representatives of the presidency, to begin with I would like to thank my colleagues on the Environment Committee. It is thanks to your flexibility that we are now approving Parliament’s opinion on the sixth Community environment action programme. Criticism has quite justifiably been directed at the fact that the reading of the programme in Parliament has been given far too short a deadline considering the importance and extent of the issue. As you know, this is due to the programme being delayed in the Commission. However, as we wanted to make our own contribution to the Gothenburg Summit, the first summit to be devoted to environmental issues, it has not been possible to avoid this rush, nor the Committee having to vote so late in the day. I would like to thank the chair of the Committee, the Committee and group secretariats and the assistants to the Members for organising the voting. I would also like to thank the Swedish Presidency and the Commission for excellent teamwork. During the preparatory work we achieved successful cooperation with the Commission, although opinions on the nature of the programme have not always been unanimous. During the period spent preparing the environment action programme we have been able to reach reasonable unanimity on the areas of emphasis suggested by the Commission being the right ones. As far as the environment is concerned, the greatest worries are climate change, the loss of biodiversity, threats to health caused by environmental problems, the sustainablity of natural resources and sustainable waste management. Differences of opinion have been caused by the way problems requiring a decision have been addressed in the programme. The Commission wanted a more descriptive programme and as the rapporteur for the Environment Committee I have chosen a policy whereby we have sought, wherever possible, concrete targets in terms of quantity and quality as well as clear timetables for the priority areas chosen. Although the environment action programme is drawn up for a ten-year period, I have also proposed targets for a period exceeding this. For example, preventing climate change will require a time perspective of decades. Sufficiently ambitious intermediate targets must be laid down to ensure that the long-term targets are met. When instructing the Commission on drawing up the programme in March a year ago, the Environment Committee also demanded that concrete targets and timetables be set. How far the environment ministers get in reaching a united opinion in one week’s time, remains to be seen. I wish them every success. It would send a really strong message to the citizens of Europe regarding the EU’s environmental commitment were Parliament and the Council to take to the Gothenburg Summit a common opinion on what we wish to achieve. In my view it is vital that the EU’s environment programme contain clear targets and timetables for achieving them because this is the only way of ensuring that the programme and its realisation can be evaluated sufficiently unambiguously. The evaluation halfway through the programme must be based on verifiable progress on the basis of which we must be able to make the necessary corrections in order to achieve the targets. Achieving environmental targets requires cooperation. Environmental issues must be included in all Community policies and decisions. We will not prevent climate change or enable healthy air for our citizens to breathe unless we reduce emissions from energy production, transport and industry. Decisions on what is to be done in various policy areas and how we can enable environmental issues to be linked to principles, will, however, be made within these different sectors. Therefore, these also require greater environmental expertise. Environmental assessments must also be included in economic decisions. The Commission and the Council must change the way they work so that environmental issues can be integrated with all Community decision-making. The Commission has proposed an interesting idea of creating new thematic strategies, thematic programmes for the problems causing the greatest concern. I see this as particularly welcome. Parliament and the Council must, however, be included in decision-making via the normal co-decision procedure. Enlargement is both a challenge and an opportunity for the European environment. The programme should present ways in which enlargement will become a major opportunity to improve our environment. We must also boldly take the lead in international environment policy, as well as trade policy and development cooperation policy. We must also ensure the major participation of citizens. This requires the provision of clear and visible information on environmental issues.

Political group: PSE