Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-16-Speech-4-131"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000316.3.4-131"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-16-Speech-4-1322
lpv:speaker	lp:Elisabeth Schroedter2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Bündnis 90/die Grünen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-12-16--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"It would appear that Community environmental protection does not have its own lobby at the Community institutions. There is no other explanation as to why the Commission gave way yesterday and suddenly decided to reinterpret the Structural Funds regulation. Having given itself real teeth last year and called in notifications of FFH areas for the joint “Natura 2000” project which had been overdue for years, the Commission has now tripped itself up by accepting that notifications can be submitted ex-post. That was unnecessary in that the regulation fully covered the Commission’s demand for FFH lists to be submitted together with the plans at the latest and per se leaves the Commission no room for manoeuvre here. The Structural Funds Regulation – decided unanimously last year by all the Member States – clearly states that the ex-ante evaluation is a prerequisite to the programme and the planning documents which the Member States submit to the Commission for approval. The Structural Funds regulation also states that this ex-ante evaluation should include an assessment of the environmental situation, especially in areas which might be influenced by Structural Fund intervention. The Commission is therefore duty bound to ensure that the documents notify it of potential areas subject to European nature conservation before it approves the plans. Submitting FFH lists once plans have been approved makes no sense from the point of view of content, because the protected areas will be reduced and adjusted to planned investments (rather than representing the framework, as required under the regulation), nor does it make any legal sense from a legal point of view because then, of course, exactly what the Commission wished to avoid will happen, i.e. planning conflicts will result in long-winded disputes. The Commission is deluding itself if it thinks that it can use Article 39 to recoup what it has failed to obtain during ex-ante evaluation. How can the Commission be credible vis-à-vis the European citizens if it is unable to implement its own requirements? By giving in, the Commission has lost the confidence of many who see sustainable development as a chance for the next generation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph