Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-09-Speech-4-260"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081009.25.4-260"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I abstained from voting on the report by Mr Richard Seeber. The report is too lengthy and some recommendations are repetitive. The biggest problem is that the entire report is based on the old water paradigm and in only one instance, in paragraph 48, does it touch briefly on the new paradigm, i.e. the need to promote rainwater collection.
Other suggestions and proposals are too muddled and as such their practical application will not be successful. The report omits the integrated approach and focuses only on tap water savings. It is very structured and therefore does not enable unambiguous interpretation.
In the end, it will be the repeat of the story of the EU Water Framework Directive. That Directive’s ambition was to promote the integrated management of watercourses in catchment areas. It boiled down to specific policies only. The proof of this is that another Directive was adopted last year: the Floods Directive. Something called ‘integrated’ is dealt with as a whole, not bit by bit. Sadly, the approach was not integrated and the Framework Directive is used as a tear-off calendar by those working in water management. One minute they are solving the issue of flooding and the next minute the issue of drought.
Something similar happened in Slovakia under socialism, specifically in the East Slovak Lowland. Firstly, we tried to solve the issue of drainage and then, in the second stage, the issue of irrigation. Today the East Slovak Lowland is like a hot plate, forcing clouds to the cooler Carpathian Mountains, where large floods originate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples