Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-07-06-Speech-2-620"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-07-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100706.34.2-620"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-07-06-Speech-2-6212
lpv:speaker	lp:Holger Krahmer2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ALDE (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Arab Peninsula (2009-09-29--2014-06-30)3 member; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Freie Demokratische Partei (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I think that we are making good legislation today. It is good and right that we are taking steps to avoid illegal timber being placed on the European internal market. However, what holds for all environmental laws also holds for this law: we cannot just put in what we want, but we must also always check whether what we put in and prescribe is feasible in the end. Therefore, I think it is right that we have, in the end, come to the compromise that due diligence only needs to take effect at the first instance of placing on the market, and also that only then can the import ban be issued. It would be much too bureaucratic to provide documentary evidence of origin throughout the entire supply chain within Europe. This was on the table at the beginning of the debate. I think that it is not realistic here to constantly keep new accounts and provide documentary evidence, from the timber yard and the sawmill right up to the furniture factory. This produces bureaucracy which, in case of doubt, produces more paper and thereby may even accelerate legal felling. Therefore, we must be moderate in this area and ensure balance. We have succeeded in doing this. I am not in favour of the approach that Mrs Hassi has just spoken of, namely that we can bring in a zero-risk policy. This is not only applicable to felling, and it will not work. Zero risk is not feasible. It produces bureaucracy and, above all, produces new risks. We must ensure that the laws remain balanced and feasible. In this sense, this compromise is a good one. I am pleased that we will be able to approve it with a large majority tomorrow."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph