Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030212.8.3-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish to thank our fellow MEP, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, for the sterling work she has done. Firstly, I want to say that I have nothing against those parts relating to forest fires and air pollution, for these are phenomena that are not confined within boundaries and that affect all countries in the same way. We cannot, however, support the third part relating to common monitoring of biodiversity. Why? Well, because this is an issue only affecting the Member States in as much as it is not possible to compare biodiversity in northern Scandinavia with that in southern Spain, or biodiversity in the Greek archipelago with that on the west coast of Ireland. What is more, no one can now say what is meant by biodiversity in a European perspective.
If the Commission is asked what there is by way of a common forestry policy in Europe, the answer is that no such policy exists. If the Commission then repeatedly introduces new monitoring tools into this area, a policy is created in secrecy, and that is unacceptable. This is also an issue of ownership. Were it to be deemed under the policy that the biodiversity on a particular piece of land or in a particular area was so important that it needed to be conserved for the future – certain islands were mentioned just recently in this context – who would then compensate whoever was forfeiting his or her asset? The issue of compensation is at present an issue for each Member State. Where is the logic in this whole decision?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples