Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-176"

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	"et"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050222.12.2-176"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-02-22-Speech-2-1772
lpv:speaker	lp:Tunne Kelam2
lpv:spokenAs	member; SEDE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (2004-10-14--2005-06-08)3 member; REGI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Erakond Isamaaliit (Pro Patria Union) (2004-07-20--2009-03-25)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, today’s debate focuses on the question: ‘How does the European Commission, when applying its integrated approach, intend to ensure that the aims of Natura 2000 are met in practice?’ No satisfactory answer has so far been put forward, since neither the European Rural Development Fund nor the Structural Funds enable all the aims of Natura 2000 to be met, or cover all the necessary cofinancing requirements. Therefore, I consider it important that an opportunity be given to use the Life+ Programme to cover the deficit. I believe the present proposal should be amended to include an opportunity to make available EU cofinancing for the protection and restoration of habitats of European importance that lie outside agricultural or forested areas. This is why Natura 2000 should be added to the Life+ regulation as a separately funded activity; also, it would be expedient in the case of Life+ to direct most of the funding for projects through the Member States. Here the actual contribution of each Member State to the EU Natura 2000 network should be taken into account, including the area of designated bird and nature protection areas. One current problem is that neither the Structural Funds nor the Rural Development Fund take this Member State contribution to the Natura 2000 network into account, but rather, give preference to projects in more densely populated areas. Coming from Estonia, I can testify that one of Estonia’s unique assets is the existence of relatively extensive natural areas. Estonia’s projects encompass 16% of the country’s land area. The preservation of these areas is simpler and cheaper at the moment than the restoration of former natural areas in Central Europe. It is not, therefore, logical that a fund to support nature protection activities uses population density, but not the current preservation status of natural resources, as a criterion for funding."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph