Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.12.2-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is true that we are in open disagreement on some of the choices made by the Council and the Commission, and I will refer to this later on. It is equally true, however, that we should begin by saying that this regulation is better than those covering LIFE I and LIFE II. It is better firstly because the framework proposal made LIFE I more rigorous, more transparent and more rational. Secondly, it is better because the common position includes some fundamental recommendations, which were advocated by the European Parliament at first reading. Specifically, these are: to promote employment as a factor to be taken into consideration when selecting candidate projects, and to reduce the environmental impact of products at every stage from production to recycling and elimination. This is one of the aims that LIFE-Environment must achieve. Thirdly, the fact that the common position has for the first time introduced upgrading and planning for coastal areas as one of LIFE-Environment’s priorities is an extremely positive step.
In spite of all its virtues though, LIFE III’s regulation fails in what is obviously the most important aspect of determining a financial instrument’s impact, which is its budget. By persisting with their proposal of EUR 613 million as a reference amount for 2000 – 2004, and by refusing to accept the European Parliament’s proposal of EUR 850 million, the Commission and the Council are taking a decision which we do not feel is based on the same criteria of rationality and justice that they introduced, and rightly so, for other measures in LIFE III.
We want the Commission and the Council to know that we will not give up trying to provide LIFE with the budget it deserves and which best guarantees the environmental results that we are seeking to achieve with this kind of instrument. We have four very straightforward arguments which we feel justify our choice. Firstly, LIFE is the only direct financial instrument which is designed to promote environmental policy within the European Union. There is no other such policy. Secondly, LIFE is an instrument that has already produced good results, and has enabled innovative methods and techniques to be developed and has an excellent rate of implementation. Thirdly, the LIFE budget has been reduced in real terms has not kept up with the enormous dynamism and creativity of demand. Fourthly, as Parliament ascribes so much value to LIFE, it has allocated ever-greater appropriations to this project in its annual budget. This means that approving the proposal put forward by the Council and by the Commission would represent an unacceptable reversal of this trend.
Our concern does not centre purely on the budgetary issue, however. Climate change and water policy are subjects that are of great concern to the European public and which have deserved considerable attention from this House. We therefore feel it is crucial that as Amendments Nos 5 and 6 seek to establish as objectives which LIFE-Environment should achieve a plan for the sustainable management of ground water and surface water, as well as for reducing greenhouse gases, they should be adopted.
Lastly, I would like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on her report and to take the opportunity to say to her that we will be voting in favour of her amendments on comitology even though, as was made clear in the Committee on the Environment, we would prefer LIFE to have been monitored by an advisory committee, we do want to contribute to allowing the solution proposed by the Council to be accepted as quite frankly, it was worse."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples