Besluitpunt "STATEME T BY DE MARK, FI LA D A D SWEDE "Denmark, Finland and Sweden emphasise the importance of taking measures at EU level as well as at the global level to deal with the sources of transboundary pollution, especially as regards mercury. Therefore, Denmark, Finland and Sweden call upon the Commission to intensify its work on the Community Mercury Strategy and to put forward further measures to deal with the problem of mercury and transboundary pollution of airborne mercury. Denmark, Finland and Sweden also underline that the EU should be a strong force in establishing legally binding measures against sources of mercury at global level." 2. STATEME T BY ITALY "Italy considers this Directive a fundamental pillar for achieving good chemical status for bodies of surface water in the European Union. Italy is pleased that the compromise text proposed by the Presidency for a new Directive for environmental quality standards in the field of water includes some important elements, in particular the option for Member states to apply environment quality standards for sediment and/or biota for certain substances on the basis of their physico-chemical features. This will allow a real and appropriate control of chemical pollution from such substances. Nevertheless, Italy is not satisfied by the definition of certain environment quality standards which are not consistent with the specific Water Framework Directive provisions. For the definition of the environmental quality standards for all the substances, Italy considers the application of the toxicological and ecotoxicological criteria established by the Water Framework Directive to be essential. Otherwise, the EU risks to fail to comply with the prescriptions of Decision 2455/2001/EC on the establishment of the list of priority substances, which requires for such substances the achievement of an approximately "zero" concentration in the marine environment by 2020. Therefore, Italy calls on the EU Council to undertake a constructively negotiation with the European Parliament during its the second reading in order to adopt an ambitious Directive coherent with the Water Framework Directive for all the relevant substances, in order properly to protect European waters and, at the same time, European citizens' health.""

WP/nv 20 ANNEX III DG I LIMITE E 3. STATEME T BY THE COMMISSIO "The Commission recognises the need to assist Member States with the implementation of Article 3, Article 4 and Annex I, Part B (points 2 and 3). In order to assist the practical and technical implementation of these provisions, the Commission will therefore organise an exchange of information and experience between Member States on these issues. This process would aim to produce documents on guidance and best practice which the responsible Commission services will publish as soon as possible. This process will be organised as part of the established cooperation framework on implementation of the Water Framework Directive." ___________________ 11382/1/07 REV 1 WP/nv 21 ANNEX IV DG I LIMITE E A EX IV Re. : Item 5 STATEME T BY SWEDE , BELGIUM, DE MARK, GREECE, ITALY A D PORTUGAL "Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy and Portugal maintain concern regarding the uncertainties with permanent storage of metallic, i.e. liquid, mercury. However, with the objective of an early agreement with the European Parliament, we have accepted the compromise in Council. We will engage actively in the coming process to further develop the regulation and reach an agreement on an effective export ban and safe storage of mercury waste." _______________ 11382/1/07 REV 1 WP/nv 22 ANNEX V DG I LIMITE E A EX V Re. : Item 6 1. STATEME T BY THE COU CIL "The Council will keep the negotiating directives given to the Commission under review in the light of the negotiations and will, if necessary, consider amending them before the fourth meeting of the Parties to the Protocol." 2. STATEME T BY SWEDE "In relation to the Council Decision on the participation of the European Community in negotiations on international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Sweden would like to make the following statement: (1) It is our opinion that, in relation to negotiations in the context of Multilateral Environmental Agreements in matters where competence is shared by the Community and the Member States, it does not necessarily follow that the Council should authorise the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the Community. In particular, there is no such requirement in relation to the negotiation and conclusion of non legally binding agreements. (2) Furthermore, it is our opinion that the fact that the Council has authorised the Commission to negotiate international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of LMOs under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety does not mean that such authorisation should be granted as a matter of principle in negotiations in the context of Multilateral Environmental Agreements in matters where competence is shared between the Community and the Member States. Nor does this authorisation change our view with regard to how negotiations of non legally binding agreements should be conducted." ___________________ 11382/1/07 REV 1 WP/nv 23 ANNEX VI DG I LIMITE E A EX VI Re. : Item 8 STATEME T BY THE COMMISSIO "The Commission intends, when preparing its proposals on burden sharing, to take fully into account the contributions that individual Member States will agree to make through the operation of the revised Emissions Trading Scheme."

Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:

1. A-punt
2. Gegevens

Dit zijn agendapunten die de Raad van de Europese Unie i niet hoeft te bespreken tijdens een Raadsvergadering i. A-punten worden als hamerstuk (zonder discussie) afgehandeld en goedgekeurd omdat binnen het Comité van Permanente Vertegenwoordigers (Coreper) i, raadswerkgroepen i of een andere Raadsformatie i al overeenstemming is bereikt. Dit in tegenstelling tot B-punten i, waarover wel discussie plaatsvindt.