Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-07-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050707.4.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, in my turn, to thank Mrs Isler Béguin, our rapporteur, as well as all of my colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the shadow rapporteurs, who have endeavoured to present to this House, as my fellow Member, Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines, has just said, a point of view that is, if I may say so, unanimous or in any case likely to receive majority support.
LIFE + and the LIFE programme constitute an extremely important part of our environmental policy, because they are the only budgetary tool that the European Union has released for its environmental policies. It is true that we are often criticised at European level by our fellow citizens for enacting directives, constraints and rules, which is quite legitimate and must be done. Europe has done a great deal for environmental policies, but people often say to us, ‘You impose constraints upon us, but you do not release many funds to support us in implementing the policies concerned’. There are therefore shows of resistance and difficulties requiring the Union to provide financial support for implementing policies.
Support tools do exist, such as the integrated policies, on which progress has been made for a number of years. I will come back to that in connection with the Structural Funds and the common agricultural policy. Yet we also require specific tools. The LIFE programme has already shown its effectiveness in many areas. I would stress the need to use LIFE to breathe life into the major framework directives, such as the one on water or our programme to combat the greenhouse effect. Mrs Isler Béguin is, however, right to say that the core issue of our debate is Natura 2000. It is positive that we have succeeded in having Natura 2000 taken into account in the EAFRD. The reality is, however, that a whole series of expenditure, which is vital for managing the geographical area targeted and for implementing the directive, cannot be included here.
This is the case for two types of expenditure: those concerning the operation and those concerning certain geographical areas. I am thinking in particular of those areas that are not directly included in agricultural areas
wet zones, areas that are slightly separated from them and so on – and that cannot receive funding under mechanisms linked to the Regional Development Fund and the Fund for Rural Development. We therefore need something in addition: we have proposed that 35% of the sum that you, Commissioner, have put at EUR 21 million be devoted to the management of Natura 2000, within the framework of the LIFE programme. I believe in any case that a specific budget attached to LIFE is a determining and essential factor for this House.
Furthermore, given that the Commission, since it was newly formed, has always been at pains to tell us that it would pay great attention to the views of Parliament, the wide agreement within Parliament on this issue ought to lead the Commission to support our points of view."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples