Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-223"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.10.2-223"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – The first legal challenge followed the start of work on the port of development in early autumn 1999 without the compensatory habitat improvements being in place. As a result, the Irish authorities agreed to reinstate the cord grass removal but this time by direct mechanical means. The use of mechanical means led to a further legal challenge – that is what I referred to also in my first answer – based on the argument that mechanical removal would damage the underlying mudflats and would cause the ecologically-harmful spread of cord grass in the estuary. There is to date no conclusive outcome to this legal challenge.
The adoption of the necessary compensatory measures is a matter for the national authorities, and does not require prior Commission approval. The Commission’s role is to make sure that the standards required by the Birds Directive are fully met, and clearly there would be a problem with compensatory measures which were themselves damaging. In this case, the Commission proposes to seek further clarification from the Irish authorities on the up-to-date position on the compensatory measures and possible problems with the mechanical removal of cord grass. We are not at the moment ready to propose to stop the financing from the Structural Funds."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples