Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-12-11-Speech-3-632-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20131211.71.3-632-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to say thank you to everyone for the cooperation on this file.
I am fully supportive of the implementation of maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management. The mapping of existing and planned human activities, plus dialogue between relevant stakeholders, is necessary to ensure the growth and development of our coastal communities. There is no reason to find fault with these objectives, but the proposed directive was intended to be a framework directive offering guidelines for Member States to follow.
On close examination it goes into far too much prescriptive detail. Many Member States, including my own, have already taken extensive action in this field, so it is important that existing processes are not affected. In addition, Member States should be fully free to determine the content of their plans and identify their own priorities for their coastal regions.
I have significant concerns with the Commission proposal, which included, in my view, too much prescriptive detail for a framework directive and as such looked likely to interfere with existing processes and limit scope for future prioritisation at national level.
The report which we will vote on this week has made some improvements to the Commission text, and I am grateful to the rapporteur for her efforts. There is now explicit text outlining Member States’ competence for the content of plans, and existing processes in the area of integrated coastal management are now taken into account – although I do have to question how realistic it is to think that all these marine plans will be in place within 36 months. It seems very ambitious.
These improvements to the Commission’s report still do not go far enough, and there is still too much detail in the articles on minimum requirements for MSP and ICM. In addition, the time frame really needs to be examined in much more detail. So, despite efforts from the Committee on Transport and Tourism, reluctantly my group will be voting against."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples