Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-12-Speech-1-160"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-06-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Flood assessment and management (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060612.20.1-160"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-06-12-Speech-1-1612
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-09-15--2007-01-14)3 member; LIBE (2004-09-14--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-11-18--2006-12-12)3 vice-chair; ENVI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 treasurer; IND/DEM (2004-07-26--2007-02-12)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as one who lives in a country that is largely below sea level, my particular interest in the discussion of this directive will come as no surprise to you. I myself live six metres below sea level. In recent years, we have witnessed the disastrous impact floods can have. My country, that is not called ‘Nether Lands’ without reason, has been flooded several times. I therefore welcome a directive that should lead to better protection against floods. The proposal submitted by the Commission to Parliament does, however, contain a few elements that I find difficult to support. As far as I am concerned, this directive should first and foremost stipulate that Member States are not allowed to take measures that lead to major risks downstream. Much of the damage caused by floods appears to be the result of human intervention, such as canalisation, the development of water meadows, deforestation of hillsides, and suchlike. Specific measures can help prevent this damage. This will give the residents of the lowlands a basic sense of security. Hence my support for Amendments 61 and 62. Secondly, this directive should not specifically aim to reduce the risks. After all, this would be a gargantuan task in certain countries that already boast high levels of protection. In general, whilst I can say that I will be backing the changes that were made in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, my group deemed some five amendments necessary, of which Amendment 78 is the most important. Indeed, the Commission proposal for Article 9 can be interpreted in such a way that not only the plans, but also the implementation of the measures contained in those plans must be assessed by the Commission. That means that infringement procedures can be instituted against Member States for the non-implementation of those concrete measures. Not only does this lead to a totally different situation, for that has never been laid down in any directive, but this could also mean that Member States will make only very unambitious plans. I would like to find out from Commissioner Dimas what his view is on this, for this is a very fundamental point for me. I would like to finish off by thanking Mr Seeber for his excellent report."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph