Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-339"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.20.3-339"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am sorry to say that, despite all Mrs Auken's efforts to improve the document, we are not doing well. I say this because I have never seen an initiative like Natura 2000 which has been backed by all MEPs and political groups and yet generated so much confusion, and in many cases, conflicting positions. Why is this? Because the document itself is poor.
It is a document born of good intentions, but technically speaking it is incomplete and muddled. Firstly, because it fails to distinguish between the different categories covered by Natura 2000: for example, between forests and agricultural land – the vast majority – where the land is farmed or a protected natural environment, as opposed to rivers, the sea and the sea bed. It would be folly to envisage applying rural development to the sea bed. How would it be funded? The same problem arises in the case of rivers and wetlands.
The different categories are not clearly defined, nor is the subject of funding dealt with clearly. For example, we see that the Structural Funds rules would need to be changed in order to finance Natura 2000, but the Structural Funds are based on statistics rather than qualitative terms, as is the case with Natura 2000.
At the same time, when funding rural development, there should be an initial awareness-raising campaign because, in reality, environmental concerns and agriculture are relatively incompatible, and because the policy underlying Natura 2000 caused many landowners to lose land or have their activities curtailed. In addition, there has been no work to assess the extent to which rural development contains environmental elements that could be used to get farmers enthused about future landscape conservation and environmental projects.
Unfortunately, as a result, this document has not been returned to the Committee, despite the importance of the subject to this Parliament and the good faith currently being demonstrated by its actions. In my view, both Parliament and biodiversity deserve a better document."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples