Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-341"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-03-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financing Natura 20002
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050309.20.3-341"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-03-09-Speech-3-3422
lpv:speaker	lp:Françoise Grossetête2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2007-02-14)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-22--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 unknown; Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Gulf States, including Yemen (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, although I have every sympathy for you, I must tell you that we find it very regrettable that Commissioner Dimas is not here, because, during the last session in Strasbourg, we were not satisfied by the answers he gave us and we would have liked to express our dissatisfaction to him once again. Natura 2000 is a compulsory policy within the framework of preservation of biodiversity, and we are obliged to implement it. The European Commission proposes to finance Natura 2000 by integrating it in the ERDF fund and in the rural development fund. In my opinion, this constitutes a twofold error, because, even if the concept of transversality is a good one, in practice it is completely unrealistic. The European Union's priority is, quite rightly, growth and employment, and one could wonder what the weighting of matters relating to biodiversity will be in comparison with economic development projects. It is therefore unrealistic to integrate this financing into the Structural Funds or the rural development fund. How can we guarantee that Natura 2000 will get the funds it needs? The members of the Committee on Agriculture, and those of the Committee on Regional Development, consider that there is a risk that this will also have a detrimental effect on the financing guarantees for those funds. We have thus all reached the same position: we consider that, under those conditions, Natura 2000 will not be financed correctly. Furthermore, some Natura 2000 areas are neither agricultural nor forested, and are not covered by either the Structural Funds or the rural development fund. In this case, these classified areas will not get any Community funding. How will we explain to the owners of this land, on which Natura 2000 classification has been imposed, that they will not benefit from the financial instruments? In our opinion, only the creation of a specific fund will make it possible to guarantee that all land classified under Natura 2000 can obtain Community co-financing. We call for this fund to be implemented as part of the new LIFE + instrument, because we cannot talk constantly about biodiversity within the framework of sustainable development and at the same time dangerously compromise those few financial instruments that make it possible to act to promote biodiversity."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph