Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-24-Speech-2-439"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070424.53.2-439"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Commissioner says that these are ‘ambitious goals’. I think not, Commissioner! The Commission’s report came under a lot of fire when the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety first discussed it in October, as the document is seriously limited in its ambition after five years of gestation. At best, it could be described as a reasonable basic document with which to start the discussion, but it lacks any concrete objectives and, as I said, any ambition. This can probably be attributed to a turf war between the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Directorate-General for the Environment – guess who won? DG ENVI’s strategy has been mainly restricted to knowledge-gathering and fails to address some key problematic sectors such as – unsurprisingly – agriculture, forestry, transport and many others.
Whilst some new initiatives are mentioned, such as a data centre for natural resources, a high-level forum and an international panel, the proposed time horizon of 25 years is totally unacceptable. By contrast, the rapporteur Mrs Liotard has worked hard to add some substance to the proposal. She correctly makes the point that the Commission communication does not comply with the requirements laid down in the Sixth Environmental Action Plan for concrete targets and timetables. The report calls on the Commission to replace this non-strategy with ambitious proposals, including clear targets and binding timetables.
I welcome the emphasis on an integrated policy approach and on the external impact of EU policy on sustainable resources. The only problem is that the rapporteur may have done too good a job. There is such a broad consensus for her report in the ENVI Committee that practically all amendments tabled were adopted, making the report somewhat long and repetitive in places. In my view, this takes away from the message. For this reason I have indicated on my group’s voting list a negative vote on certain paragraphs that duplicate points mentioned elsewhere in the report."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples