Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-28-Speech-4-014"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050428.5.4-014"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, we in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats very much welcome this Directive. Nevertheless, from the outset, we found ourselves, at least in certain sectors within my group and certain countries, in a particularly uncomfortable situation, because the directive did not fulfil all the objectives we had hoped for.
For example, it did not deal with one fundamental issue relating to the control of aquifers — quantity — and focussed solely on quality, although, in reality, the water directive, in its respective annexes, talked about controlling quantities — volumes of water — and controlling quality at the same time. The failure to link quality and quantity in a government measure, a management measure, is something we cannot understand.
Furthermore, there is no insistence on the need for control either on the part of the Member States or on the part of river basins, which is what the water Directive lays down for the management of water; it does not provide for control by means of river basins but rather by means of countries.
Furthermore, the artificial refilling of aquifers is not considered either, despite the fact that this is an essential phenomenon.
Finally, we must point out that we believe that many of Parliament’s amendments make the situation worse, because they are intended to standardise all aquifers and all controls of substances, although we are well aware that European geology is very diverse and that the concept of Europe's geological diversity must be a fundamental consideration of this policy, because sustainable development must be appropriate for each location.
Furthermore, we believe that some of the amendments would be impossible to implement, such as Amendment 94, because a State cannot guarantee what enters its aquifers, since in many cases they are shared. If Amendment 94 is approved, therefore, we are going to vote against the directive because it would be incomplete and would not provide for control of quantities of water."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples