Gruppo 25 aprile

Piattaforma civica (e apartitica) per Venezia e la sua laguna

Archivio per la categoria “Salute e inquinamento a Venezia”

12 marzo, in difesa della pineta di Tessera

Senza bandiere e senza comizi, il video della pacifica manifestazione in difesa di quel poco che resta della pineta di Tessera, minacciata dall’ennesima orgia di cemento e parcheggi. Un grazie alla regista, Loredana Spadon:

In English, for our foreign friends:

Video: Citizens rally at Tessera to save the trees, over 1500 sign petition to stop the cutting.

Galleria fotografica, prima parte (Andrea Sperandio):

as 1

as 2

as 3

 

 

 

Comunicato stampa: che aria respiriamo, a Venezia?

Venezia, 6 gennaio 2017

Con riferimento alle dichiarazioni rilasciate dall’ARPAV (Agenzia Regionale per l’Ambiente del Veneto) al Gazzettino oggi in edicola, il Gruppo25Aprile sottolinea che:

  1. Ad essere in discussione non è il numero complessivo di stazioni di monitoraggio per la qualità dell’aria (“centraline”) presenti nel territorio comunale o zonale ma la loro ubicazione nella città d’acqua (Venezia e isole), dove l’unica centralina presente in 500 km² di Laguna è classificata come “stazione di fondo”, che per definizione registra valori più bassi, mentre la normativa europea richiede che ve ne sia anche una di traffico per valutare l’esposizione effettiva della popolazione rispetto alle fonti locali di inquinamento, che nel caso di Venezia comprendono il traffico acqueo (con un contributo pari a quasi il 50% delle polveri sottili o PM2.5).
  2. Se all’ARPAV sta a cuore la salute dei cittadini – cosa di cui non dubitiamo – non si capisce perché per fare ciò che da anni viene chiesto occorra aspettare che ad ordinarlo sia l’Europa: di prescrizioni dovrebbero bastare quelle dei medici di base e pediatri di Venezia che anche quest’anno hanno sottolineato la gravità del problema e le sue ripercussioni in termini di salute dei singoli (bambini e anziani in particolare) i cui costi si scaricano sul servizio sanitario che è competenza regionale.
  3. Il costo medio di una stazione di monitoraggio in Europa si aggira sui 20.000 euro, cifra risibile in confronto ai costi umani ed economici del trattamento delle patologie causate o aggravate dall’inquinamento atmosferico (asma e altre patologie respiratorie, maggiore incidenza di incidenti cardiovascolari, tumori) secondo le risultanze ufficiali dell’OMS (Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità). Se i costi umani di tali patologie gravano sulle famiglie, quelli economici gravano anche sulle casse regionali; il Gruppo25Aprile intende pertanto investire della questione il Presidente della Regione Veneto, Luca Zaia, da cui dipendono le nomine ai vertici ARPAV e la supervisione sull’operato dell’Agenzia Regionale per l’Ambiente.

L’articolo del Gazzettino:

arpav-2017-gennaio-6

..e quello del giorno precedente, che dava conto della nostra posizione:

arpav-2017-gennaio-5

La prima foto è tratta da:

https://gruppo25aprile.org/?s=la+laguna+chiede

L’appello dei medici:

APPELLO DEI PEDIATRI DI FAMIGLIA DI MESTRE E VENEZIA
Come pediatri di famiglia siamo molto preoccupati per l’aumento dell’inquinamento
atmosferico nella nostra città, con continui superamenti dei valori massimi consentiti, in modo ripetuto e persistente.
Da anni sono noti gli effetti nocivi di un ambiente inquinato sulla salute umana, soprattutto
nelle fasce più fragili, come i bambini, per le loro caratteristiche particolari.
L’OMS stima che circa un terzo delle malattie che colpiscono l’infanzia, dalla nascita ai 18
anni, sia da attribuire ad un ambiente insalubre o insicuro.
Nei primi anni di vita alcuni organi, come il cervello e i polmoni, si trovano in una fase di rapida crescita e di sviluppo incompleto, perciò possono essere danneggiati più
facilmente.
L’immaturità delle vie metaboliche del bambino comporta una minore capacità di eliminare
le sostanze nocive, mentre in proporzione alla sua massa corporea egli ne assume di più:
per esempio un piccolo di un anno scambia un volume d’aria doppio rispetto ad un adulto.
Inoltre i bambini, per la loro altezza, respirano in un’atmosfera peggiore, perché entro un metro dal suolo si concentrano sostanze nocive come i gas di scarico delle auto ed un piccolo in passeggino respira proprio all’altezza dei tubi di scappamento.
Nei bambini è dimostrata con certezza la correlazione tra livelli di inquinamento
atmosferico e basso peso alla nascita, aumento di polmoniti e bronchiti, asma, tosse
secca notturna, riduzione della capacità respiratoria.
E’ noto inoltre che le particelle più piccole tra le polveri sottili possono attraversare la
placenta, veicolando veleni che creano danni irreversibili all’embrione.
Dato che la maggior parte dei neuroni cerebrali si forma entro i due anni, l’assorbimento di
sostanze neurotossiche può creare lesioni permanenti e minare lo sviluppo psicomotorio.
Ci sono poi, se possibile ancor più temibili, gli effetti a distanza, visto che i bambini
saranno esposti agli effetti nocivi per un tempo più lungo.
Le evidenze scientifiche sembrano purtroppo trovare conferma in questo periodo nei nostri
piccoli pazienti.
Non è un caso se, oltre alla comune patologia stagionale, nelle ultime settimane ci
troviamo a fronteggiare moltissimi casi di tosse intrattabile e persistente, particolarmente
grave nei numerosi bambini asmatici, ma presente anche in soggetti finora sani.
La salute dei nostri bambini non può essere affidata alla speranza della pioggia, ai capricci
di un clima così modificato dal deteriorarsi delle condizioni del pianeta.
Quindi, come ci impone il nostro codice deontologico, chiediamo con forza alle Autorità
competenti e alle Amministrazioni di prendere con urgenza provvedimenti contro questa
emergenza sanitaria, sia immediati, sia strutturali nel più lungo periodo.
I PEDIATRI DI FAMIGLIA DI MESTRE E VENEZIA

 

21 novembre: Venezia festeggia la Madonna della Salute e una sentenza storica

salute

COMUNICATO STAMPA:

 Venezia, 19 novembre 2014.

Il Gruppo25Aprile accoglie con soddisfazione e con grande interesse, per le strade che potrebbe dischiudere anche a Venezia, la storica sentenza con cui oggi 19 novembre la Corte europea di Giustizia ha definitivamente chiarito che:

  1. La normativa europea sulla qualità dell’aria stabilisce un obbligo di risultato con riferimento al rispetto dei valori limite introdotti, a tutela della salute umana, dalla direttiva 2008/50.
  2. Tale obbligo è sufficientemente chiaro e incondizionato da creare anche un corrispondente diritto individuale a richiedere l’adozione, a livello locale, di tutte le misure necessarie per garantire il rispetto di quei valori limite e, con esso, il diritto alla salute dei cittadini.
  3. Laddove i valori limite vengano superati e le misure in vigore non si siano dimostrate sufficienti, i tribunali nazionali sono tenuti ad assicurare la tutela di questo diritto con tutti i mezzi previsti dall’ordinamento giuridico, ivi compresa la tutela inibitoria.

Nel caso specifico di Venezia, il superamento dei valori limite riguarda due sostanze inquinanti: le polveri sottili (PM10) e il biossido di azoto (NO2), le cui emissioni sono principalmente dovute all’utilizzo di combustibili fossili nel settore del trasporto, acqueo e terrestre: emissioni dei motori diesel in particolare, classificate come cancerogene dall’OMS (Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità). Come cittadini CHIEDIAMO ARIA PULITA per i nostri polmoni e per i nostri figli in quella che, essendo una città pedonale, dovrebbe essere al riparo dai problemi di inquinamento tipici delle grandi città. Del vivere in una città senza macchine sopportiamo volentieri i disagi, ma vogliamo almeno conservarne i benefici? A tutela della nostra salute CHIEDIAMO l’adozione di tutte le misure idonee a riportare i livelli di PM10 e biossido di azoto al di sotto della soglia prevista dalla normativa europea e questo nel più breve termine possibile, come indicato dalla sentenza odierna che è vincolante per TUTTI gli Stati membri.

G25A: nato per riflettere, discutere, agire

————-

La sentenza della Corte europea di Giustizia nella causa C-404/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

19 November 2014

In Case C‑404/13, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, made by decision of 16 July 2013, received at the Court on 19 July 2013, in the proceedings The Queen, on the application of: ClientEarth v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, THE COURT (Second Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, Vice‑President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Second Chamber, J.‑C. Bonichot (Rapporteur), A. Arabadjiev and J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, Judges, Advocate General: N. Jääskinen, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 July 2014, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: – ClientEarth, by P. Kirch, lawyer, D. Rose QC, E. Dixon and B. Jaffey, Barristers; – the United Kingdom Government, by M. Holt and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and by K. Smith QC; – the European Commission, by K. Mifsud-Bonnici and S. Petrova, acting as Agents, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 4 TEU and 19 TEU and Articles 13, 22, 23 and 30 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between ClientEarth, a non‑governmental organisation interested in protection of the environment, and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, concerning that organisation’s request for revision of the air quality plans drawn up by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under Directive 2008/50 for certain of its zones and agglomerations.

Legal context

Directive 2008/50 3 Recital 16 in the preamble to Directive 2008/50 is worded as follows: ‘For zones and agglomerations where conditions are particularly difficult, it should be possible to postpone the deadline for compliance with the air quality limit values in cases where, notwithstanding the implementation of appropriate pollution abatement measures, acute compliance problems exist in specific zones and agglomerations. Any postponement for a given zone or agglomeration should be accompanied by a comprehensive plan to be assessed by the Commission to ensure compliance by the revised deadline. The availability of necessary Community measures reflecting the chosen ambition level in the Thematic Strategy on air pollution to reduce emissions at source will be important for an effective emission reduction by the timeframe established in this Directive for compliance with the limit values and should be taken into account when assessing requests to postpone deadlines for compliance.’ 4 Article 1 of Directive 2008/50, entitled ‘Subject matter’, provides: ‘This Directive lays down measures aimed at the following:

  1. defining and establishing objectives for ambient air quality designed to avoid, prevent or reduce harmful effects on human health and the environment as a whole;

…’ 5 Article 2 of Directive 2008/50, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides: ‘For the purposes of this Directive: …

  1. “limit value” shall mean a level fixed on the basis of scientific knowledge, with the aim of avoiding, preventing or reducing harmful effects on human health and/or the environment as a whole, to be attained within a given period and not to be exceeded once attained;

(omissis)

34 As regards the question of whether certain circumstances may nevertheless justify a failure to comply with that obligation, it suffices to observe that Directive 2008/50 does not contain any exception to the obligation flowing from Article 22(1).

(omissis)

40. It follows, next, from the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 that where the limit values for nitrogen dioxide are exceeded after the deadline laid down for their attainment, the Member State concerned is required to establish an air quality plan that meets certain requirements. 41 Thus, that plan must set out appropriate measures so that the period during which the limit values are exceeded can be kept as short as possible and may also include specific measures aimed at protecting sensitive population groups, including children. Furthermore, under the third subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, that plan is to incorporate at least the information listed in Section A of Annex XV to the directive, may also include measures pursuant to Article 24 of the directive and must be communicated to the Commission without delay, and no later than two years after the end of the year in which the first breach of the limit values was observed. 42. However, an analysis which proposes that a Member State would, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, have entirely satisfied its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50 merely because such a plan has been established, cannot be accepted. 43. First, it must be observed that only Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50 expressly provides for the possibility of a Member State postponing the deadline laid down in Annex XI to the directive for achieving conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide established in that annex. 44. Second, such an analysis would be liable to impair the effectiveness of Articles 13 and 22 of Directive 2008/50 because it would allow a Member State to disregard the deadline imposed by Article 13 under less stringent conditions than those imposed by Article 22. 45 Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50 requires that the air quality plan contains not only the information that must be provided under Article 23 of the directive, which is listed in Section A of Annex XV thereto, but also the information listed in Section B of Annex XV, concerning the status of implementation of a number of directives and on all air pollution abatement measures that have been considered at the appropriate local, regional or national level for implementation in connection with the attainment of air quality objectives. That plan must, furthermore, demonstrate how conformity with the limit values will be achieved before the new deadline. 46 Finally, this interpretation is also supported by the fact that Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2008/50 are, in principle, to apply in different situations and are different in scope. 47 Article 22(1) of the directive applies where conformity with the limit values of certain pollutants ‘cannot’ be achieved by the deadline initially laid down by Directive 2008/50, account being taken, as is clear from recital 16 in the preamble to the directive, of a particularly high level of pollution. Moreover, that provision allows the deadline to be postponed only where the Member State is able to demonstrate that it will be able to comply with the limit values within a further period of a maximum of five years. Article 22(1) has, therefore, only limited temporal scope. 48 By contrast, Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 has a more general scope because it applies, without being limited in time, to breaches of any pollutant limit value established by that directive, after the deadline fixed for its application, whether that deadline is fixed by Directive 2008/50 or by the Commission under Article 22(1) of the directive.

(omissis)

52 As regards Article 4 TEU, it should be recalled that according to settled case-law, under the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in paragraph 3 of that article, it is for the Member States to ensure judicial protection of an individual’s rights under EU law (see, to that effect, inter alia the judgment in Unibet, C‑432/05, EU:C:2007:163, paragraph 38). In addition, Article 19(1) TEU requires Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law.

53 If the limit values for nitrogen dioxide are exceeded after 1 January 2010 in a Member State that has not applied for a postponement of that deadline under Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50, the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive imposes a clear obligation on that Member State to establish an air quality plan that complies with certain requirements (see, by analogy, judgment in Janecek, C‑237/07, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 35).

54 In addition, the Court has consistently held that individuals are entitled, as against public bodies, to rely on the provisions of a directive which are unconditional and sufficiently precise. It is for the competent national authorities and courts to interpret national law, as far as possible, in a way that is compatible with the purpose of that directive. Where such an interpretation is not possible, they must disapply the rules of national law which are incompatible with the directive concerned (see, to that effect, judgment in Janecek, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited.) 55 Lastly, as the Court of Justice has noted on numerous occasions, it is incompatible with the binding effect that Article 288 TFEU ascribes to Directive 2008/50 to exclude, in principle, the possibility of the obligation imposed by that directive being relied on by the persons concerned. That consideration applies particularly in respect of a directive whose objective is to control and reduce atmospheric pollution and which is designed, therefore, to protect public health (see, to that effect, judgment in Janecek, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 37).

56 It follows that the natural or legal persons directly concerned by the limit values being exceeded after 1 January 2010 must be in a position to require the competent authorities, if necessary by bringing an action before the courts having jurisdiction, to establish an air quality plan which complies with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, where a Member State has failed to secure compliance with the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50 and has not applied for a postponement of the deadline as provided for by Article 22 of the directive (see, by analogy, judgment in Janecek, EU:C:2008:447, paragraph 39). 57 As regards the content of the plan, it follows from the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 that, while Member States have a degree of discretion in deciding which measures to adopt, those measures must, in any event, ensure that the period during which the limit values are exceeded is as short as possible.

58 The answer to the fourth question is therefore that, where a Member State has failed to comply with the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50 and has not applied for a postponement of the deadline as provided for by Article 22 of the directive, it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter. 59 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:

  1. Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to postpone by a maximum of five years the deadline specified by the directive for achieving conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide specified in Annex XI thereto, a Member State is required to make an application for postponement and to establish an air quality plan when it is objectively apparent, having regard to existing data, and notwithstanding the implementation by that Member State of appropriate pollution abatement measures, that conformity with those values cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration by the specified deadline. Directive 2008/50 does not contain any exception to the obligation flowing from Article 22(1).
  2. Where it is apparent that conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide established in Annex XI to Directive 2008/50 cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration of a Member State by 1 January 2010, the date specified in that annex, and that Member State has not applied for postponement of that deadline under Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50, the fact that an air quality plan which complies with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the directive has been drawn up, does not, in itself, permit the view to be taken that that Member State has nevertheless met its obligations under Article 13 of the directive.
  3. Where a Member State has failed to comply with the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50 and has not applied for a postponement of the deadline as provided for by Article 22 of the directive, it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.

Navigazione articolo