Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-344"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.20.3-344"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"It is evident that the funding of the Natura 2000 network is still very precarious. As you have already heard, we have no problem as such with the integrated approach, as long as the Commission provides firm guarantees or guidelines, which are currently lacking, and, if I have understood the Commissioner correctly, will be lacking for some time. Funding, though, is a very important matter; this House has done its level best and has made every effort to convince the Commission that playing Pontius Pilate is all too easy an option.
Putting things into practice is a different matter altogether, though. When we return home on Friday and a local government, farmer, environmental association or, indeed, our neighbour asks what we have agreed on, what it means to them in concrete terms and how things should progress from here on, we will be unable to give a reply. Yet, it is important to create a solid social support base to set up the Natura 2000 network. Since the procedure for the implementation of the Bird and Habitat Directives was carried out without input from the public, we are still – in my country at least – waiting for its publication, because it is a very sensitive issue politically speaking.
If we want to give Natura 2000 a fighting chance and not again give people the impression that the matter is being decided from the top down, it is important to inform them as soon, and as accurately, as possible about the implications of this decision. To the public, it really makes no difference whether the funds are sourced from a special fund, a structural fund or a rural development fund. What they do want to know is whether, and by whom, they will be compensated if certain things are no longer allowed or if their land has been reduced in value. Questions such as ‘Am I allowed to build a house?’ and, in the case of agricultural land, ‘what about the fertiliser issue?’ will most certainly surface. It therefore follows that the Commission must communicate in plain terms as quickly as possible. There is too much uncertainty, which certainly does not benefit the environment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples