Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-03-Speech-1-157"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-07-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Application of the Aarhus Convention to the EC institutions and bodies (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060703.19.1-157"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-07-03-Speech-1-1582
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-16--2009-07-13)3 substitute; DEVE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2007-03-25)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this outcome of the conciliation aims to achieve greater transparency in environmental matters and greater public participation in decision-making with regard to these. Mrs Korhola’s report makes it very clear that there had been a wide variety of developments in the legislative procedure and also some documents that certainly would not have met with our approval. Seen from this point of view, the compromise reached is undoubtedly acceptable. Evaluating this text on the basis of the objectives given is another matter, however. These state quite clearly that, through public participation, every citizen should be able to live in the environment he or she finds pleasant, yet this objective cannot actually be achieved, as everyone has a different way of looking at his or her environment. The fact is that this is a noble objective and, if I take it as a basis, our achievements do not live up to it. I should also like to make the basic comment that this compromise, in particular, fails to meet the general demand for less bureaucracy, more transparency and more democracy; on the contrary, it is completely wide of the mark. The additional bureaucracy that this proposal entails is hardly acceptable. In addition, from my perspective, it is unacceptable to grant special rights to non-governmental organisations in the environmental field. After all, many proposals and amendments would make it possible for NGOs to block or amend legislative texts from this House and Council just like that. I value the work done by NGOs in the environmental field, in particular, but I also see them as just lobbyists and representatives of a certain movement, like representatives of enterprises or associations. In this regard, we must follow closely what progress is being made with the legislative text, what the impact is on legislation in general, and also which objectives are being achieved – quite apart from the fact that I can also see this leading to harmful competition between enterprises and, potentially, to distortions of competition. We must monitor this situation."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph