Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-172"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental impact of certain plans and programmes2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010530.9.3-172"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-30-Speech-3-1732
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today has again proved that the European Union’s environmental policy has in recent years become a key aspect of European policy. There can be no doubt that the wide-ranging efforts to protect the environment and human health and the careful and rational use of natural resources are necessary and important. The compromise now arrived at in the Conciliation Committee concerning the assessment of the environmental impact of certain Parliamentary programmes is therefore also an important building block in the European Union’s environmental policy. I am glad that many of the uncertainties and imponderables from the first and second readings are no longer part of this directive. I particularly welcome the fact that many terms – and I will only mention the term public again here – are now clearly defined. The extension of the directive to support out of EU funds, that is to support from the Structural Funds, must certainly be viewed positively by and large. It should be pointed out here, however, that applications for money from the Structural Funds are already being delayed by bureaucratic hurdles and by what seem to me in some cases to be highly unreasonable demands. If we are now looking for further conditions to be met for support from the Structural Funds, the necessary second step must be to reduce bureaucracy in other fields. I would emphatically point out that the impression should not be given here that inclusion of the environmental impact assessment will put support in jeopardy. Allow me to draw your attention to another weakness. It is doubtful whether the environmental impact assessment referred to in the present text will be applied in a comparable manner in all Member States. Too often the application and implementation of important rules is left to the discretion of the Member States. This no doubt satisfies the regionalists in the EU, but it is hardly conducive to achieving comparable situations in the European Union. There is also the fear that distortions of competition might result. I see this as the crucial weakness of the compromise arrived at in the Conciliation Committee. If environmental impact assessments serve only to highlight possible dangers in one country but the same results of the assessment may result in the measures in question being banned in another, we can hardly speak of the arrangement as being appropriate for an internal market. We should watch and critically examine developments in the next few years and take action accordingly."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph