Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-156"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-02-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financing nature protection policy2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050222.12.2-156"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-02-22-Speech-2-1572
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Mulder2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2004-09-03--2007-01-14)3 vice-chair; BUDG (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (2004-10-14--2005-06-08)3 substitute; AGRI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, we have known for a long time that less and less land is needed to produce food, which means that we can indulge in more extensive agriculture and can create more nature as a result. As far as I am concerned, agriculture is a specific component of rural development, and as far as I am concerned, so is the Natura 2000 programme. Nature plays an essential role in the development of the countryside and cannot be see in isolation from other aspects of agriculture and of other employment initiatives in the countryside. For years, Europe has promoted this by means of legislation. We are familiar with the Bird and Habitat Directive, which has been transposed into the Flora and Fauna Act in the Netherlands, and we have created special payments systems for all those regulations. We are also familiar with the mountain farmers’ regulation, the Natura 2000 additional payments, and such like. As for the future, I have already said that I see all those programmes as forming part of rural development, and I think that we should therefore ensure that a special fund for Natura 2000 is set up within the framework of the rural development fund. The big question then is: how should the money be spent? As the Commissioner already indicated, we are familiar with the system of cofinancing, which, in my view, can take on special forms. In some countries, this cofinancing is clearly a problem – probably a bigger problem for poorer countries than for the richer ones. Perhaps the Commission could look into the possibility of having different cofinancing systems running parallel in the framework of this programme? Following on from what I said about agriculture being, by nature, a form of rural development, another question which the Commission might be able to look into is whether subsidies to agriculture are generally more expensive than subsidies to nature development in Europe."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph