Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-12-Speech-1-146"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-11-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Protection of soil - Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sk"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071112.20.1-146"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-11-12-Speech-1-1472
lpv:speaker	lp:Irena Belohorská2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Presidents (2007-01-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; AFET (2007-11-06--2009-07-13)3 member; DROI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-10-24--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Hnutie za demokratické Slovensko (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; NA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Before looking at the actual wording of the proposed framework directive on soil protection, we should consider whether EU legislation in this area is actually needed. The opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs should be taken into consideration. It clearly rejected the need for soil protection legislation in the EU on the basis that soil does not have any cross-border implications and is therefore a regional issue. Despite the fact that other committees, in their respective opinions, were essentially in favour of EU legislation in this matter, certain factions are somewhat hesitant. For example, the amendment to Article 5 in the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development clearly indicates that the degradation of the soil has local or regional causes and effects and it is therefore essential to adopt national as opposed to European measures. This appears to be in conflict with the remainder of the text, which is clearly in favour of the framework directive. Similar wording can be found in the amendment by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to Article 2. On the other hand, it is important to recognise that the degradation of soil, as a non-renewable resource, has significant consequences on other aspects, for which legislation already exists, such as water quality, food safety, climate change, etc. Even if both sides were partly right with regards to the need for a framework directive, I believe that the decision to adopt or reject the European framework will be a political one. I would like to comment on the change in the character of the report from negative to positive. One example is the replacement of the term ‘risk area’ with ‘priority area’. I believe that for areas where soil degradation needs to be stopped urgently we must use urgent terminology; soil at risk must be indicated with a negative term to underscore the seriousness of the situation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph