Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-181"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001116.10.4-181"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, throughout their various interventions, MEPs have concentrated on two quite different points: in the first place, the problem of climate change and, in the second place, what the Commission or the European Union can do in a situation like the present one, with the extremely serious floods that have occurred.
With regard, finally, to the possibility of using Article 87.2, established in the Treaty, as a basis for Community aid, I believe that this involves an extravagant interpretation of this article, and that is leaving aside the budgetary problems it would create. The article does not relate to Community aid, but relates to the compatibility of national aid with Community legislation. What this article says is that, in the case of natural catastrophes, national aid may be compatible. Each time the Commission has proposed the compatibility of such national aid following natural catastrophes, there has always been such compatibility. We are therefore entirely sympathetic to acting right now within the legal and budgetary margins available to us.
With regard to the first subject, I should like to point out that, as Parliament also does, we attach great importance to the problem of climate change and to the conference that is at this moment taking place in The Hague. We actively participated in the preparations for the conference and insisted that the European Union must assume a leading role in it.
We agree with a number of assertions already made to the effect that we are in this way contributing to the protection of the environment and to the credibility of the environmental protocols with a view to their ratification in 2002. We are aware that the global destabilisation of the climate caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be the most important challenge for Europe’s energy sector.
The energy and transport sectors produce 85% of the total emissions of greenhouse gases in the European Union. It is therefore these industries which ought to be making a major effort to reduce emissions.
Given its anticipated continuous growth – of more than 38% in the next decade – the transport sector will be that which requires the more important measures. On this basis, the Commission is shortly going to be proposing two strategic documents: a combination of policies and measures designed to provide a response to the Kyoto commitments and to the objectives regarding transport and energy. The first will deal with the security of the energy supply and the second with a revised common transport policy.
Apart from environmental problems, however, I should also like to comment on what we are able to do at the moment. As you know, we have a basic difficulty: the legal basis for taking action. You know that, historically, there was a budget heading dedicated to emergency aid for populations in exceptional situations. This heading disappeared from the Budget some time ago on the basis of the argument that these were matters to which the subsidiarity principle applied and which ought to be raised at national, rather than Community, level. Ever since then, the Commission’s margin for manoeuvre has been very limited.
The Commission has taken two initiatives along these lines. One of these is very clear and is connected with civil protection: on 27 September 2000, we presented a draft Council decision for reinforcing Community instruments designed to coordinate the various systems of civil protection at European level. This will be effective in helping us solve problems, but it is not going to solve problems such as those we are creating now. All that we shall have left are the financing instruments that already exist.
Mrs Ghilardotti raised the possibility of seeking funds. It is not so easy to do that. As you know better than anyone, funds are fully allocated and there are no generalised fund surpluses, even though there may be specific instances where there are no budgetary implementations. What is certain is that, if there is no legal basis for using these funds, it is very difficult to obtain them. The Commission’s proposal, which Commissioner Wallström explained in detail in this Parliament, is therefore to use the currently existing EAGGF funds, or the structural funds of the Interreg funds. The fact is that, in these cases, we cannot speak of actions of the Commission involving a global programme. Either we totally change the model or we shall have to think of the actions concerned as being at the request of the Member States and involving programmes or specific actions dependent upon the use of these funds.
As we said just now, we are entirely sympathetic to these practical projects, and I want to insist upon this point today, but it is absolutely essential to be able to rely on these proposals if we are to be able to take action."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples