Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-159"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-01-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environment directives2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010116.9.2-159"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-01-16-Speech-2-1602
lpv:speaker	lp:Dorette Corbey2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3,3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3,3 substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3,3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, poor compliance with environmental legislation is a huge problem. As co-legislator, it is important for us to speak our minds, but we should not pass the blame to the Member States too readily. We must also consider the quality and nature of the legislation we produce. The Union is growing ever bigger and more diverse. We must therefore lay down rules which can thrive in the different national cultures. That is why I think we should prescribe less detail. We must be very precise in the results we want, but not in the way in which the results must be achieved. For that reason, I believe we should stand by the result, a maximum of 50 milligrams, in the nitrates directive. We do accept a certain degree of flexibility with regard to the method by which the result is achieved. An example of sound legislation is the habitats directive. The environment is a common legacy; environmental protection a common task. It makes no sense to protect birds in one country if they are being shot down across the border in another country. The habitats directive prescribes a clear goal. The way in which it is to be achieved is quite flexible. The directive is not detailed, but provides a framework which allows latitude for weighing up local or regional interests, and that is exactly how we need to move forward. As long as the result – caring for the protected species and their habitats – remains paramount. Needless to say, there are many conflicts in villages and provinces with regard to the directive’s application. There are instances of incorrect application. It would be useful and necessary to provide clear information, but I am taken aback by the large number of MEPs who have requested a review of the bird and habitats directive in order to work out in further detail certain concepts in the habitats directive. The significant implications of this would then be compensation and major public interest. The very strength of the habitats directive lies in its flexibility. The directive stands for a modern way of protecting the environment. It is not about putting up fences around the environment, but about dealing with the species and natural resources in a conscientious manner. Accordingly, I regret that some MEPs are adding to the chaos by suggesting in an amendment that the existing infrastructure should disappear, or that major new projects are not viable."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph