Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-098"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010117.4.3-098"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-01-17-Speech-3-0992
lpv:speaker	lp:Gilles Savary2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". I am in total agreement with the Habitats Directive and its objectives in terms of protecting the endangered outstanding natural heritage of the countries of the European Union. This heritage and its biological and genetic diversity are the planet’s most precious assets and we must indeed ensure that they are protected, reproduced and handed down to future generations. Even so, I voted against the Sjöstedt report for two crucial reasons. Firstly, it is unacceptable to blackmail European appropriations allocated to our countries by making them conditional, in article 11, upon compliance with the Habitats Directive as it stands. If it were simply a matter of ensuring that European funds are not used to finance projects destroying these outstanding ecosystems, then I should have endorsed the resolution and voted in favour of it, but it is unacceptable and unprecedented to make a European Union policy conditional upon compliance with another and that social conditions should be subject, for example, to environmental conditions. My second reason is that the resolution does not clarify the concept of “disturbance” and the legal discussion, which is so deliberately vague that legal battles could be revived, which might lead to bans on traditional hunts where these are authorised under the Birds Directive and the subsidiary law in the states. It is precisely because the European Union deliberately maintains this ambiguity that some countries experience problems in issuing their “Nature 2000” lists and in implementing the Habitats Directive calmly, without resistance on the part of the farmers in those countries, even though everyone acknowledges the noble nature of the objectives of the directive."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph