Ambient air quality: common strategy for assessment and management

Mr PAPAYANNAKIS pointed out that the aim of this proposal was to determine a common strategy for the assessment of substances present in the air. It was a framework directive that would be followed by a number of implementing directives. Since these directives would only cover six substances, the rapporteur felt that another list should be drawn up by the year 2000for a whole range of dangerous substances that were currently being studied. Of the amendments tabled, one called for more information in relation to the public; another related to the regular revision of the limit values. When presenting his report on a reciprocal exchange of information from networks and stations measuring ambient air pollution within the Member States, Mrs POLLACK highlighted the amendment aimed at applying the provisions in small towns, which was not included in the text. Mrs BJERREGAARD stated that she could take over, in full or in principle, 24 of the 39 amendments: Amendments Nos 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 to 15, 17 to 20, 24 to 26, 28, 29, 31 to 36. As regards Mrs Pollack’s report, she could take over Amendments Nos 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 18 and 19; she could also take over Amendments Nos 2, 9 and 10 in part. However, she rejected Amendments Nos 5, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17.