Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-07-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050707.4.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the intention is that LIFE + should be the sole financial instrument for the environment from 2007 onwards. It is no bad idea to combine in one single environmental instrument the various programmes that have supported such environmental measures as actions within the scope of the Forest Focus Regulation and supported non-governmental organisations and local and regional authorities. As one who is involved with the budget, I am particularly glad that we can take it as read that this operation will result in greater efficiency and effectiveness.
We know that, in order to be effective, energy policy must be implemented at ground level, throughout the EU and on a local basis everywhere. For that reason, although the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are not open to criticism, it is urgently necessary, if we really do want the funding of environmental policy to add indisputable value to Europe, that the use to which the funds are put be effectively monitored. Such monitoring will involve not only codecision by Parliament on the multiannual programmes, but also, and of necessity, evaluation at short intervals, in order to make it possible to make adjustments without delay.
The ‘LIFE-Nature’ part has been as good as dropped from the Commission proposal for LIFE, and with it has gone the funding for Natura 2000 measures. That is something we cannot accept. The Commission’s proposal for the management of the Natura 2000 areas to be paid for out of the Fund is no bad idea either in view of what the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has seen of the problems inherent in such a
essentially competition with other objectives laid down in various funds.
We eventually came to an agreement that LIFE + should be used to support those Natura 2000 areas that are not covered by one of the funds. It remains to be seen how far this approach, which is at once perceptive, realistic and motivated by solidarity, will get us. Despite this House, yesterday, prompted by the Committee on Regional Development, having struck every single reference to Natura 2000 out of the Structural Funds Regulations, I do expect not only our Committee, but also the NGOs and the Commission, to take the initiative – or go on the offensive – in order to persuade people."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples