Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-07-Speech-4-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050707.4.4-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I too welcome the Commission’s proposal for simplifying the funding and administration of the existing environmental programmes and, in LIFE +, combining them into one single financial instrument. I, too, am all in favour of protecting the environment and of making whatever financial provision is necessary for it, and I would be happy if we were able today to make generous financial arrangements for the protection of nature.
I do believe, though that the failure of our financial planning for 2007-2013 means that it would be unrealistic to make specific financial demands today, and an illusion to believe that we can. Right now, we do not know how much the overall European budget will add up to. We all know that the whole house, the financial framework, must be standing before we can furnish the rooms. We have given a very full description of the way in which the Structural Funds and rural development, on the one hand, compete against LIFE + on the other.
As things stand at present, we have to ask ourselves which measures it makes sense to promote through LIFE +, and which tasks should continue to be entrusted to the Member States. Should not, for example, the protection of forests remain a responsibility and task for the Member States? Why, for that matter, should the acquisition of land be funded by LIFE + money? The assumption is being made here that the mere acquisition of a plot of land by an environmental organisation itself protects the environment, but what is at issue is not to whom the land belongs, but how it is managed; to put it another way, its management as a FFH area, a habitat for flora and fauna, has to be ensured and promoted, with the resultant tasks and costs being covered by LIFE +. Proper management of areas of land is what protection of the environment is all about, and it ends up being much better value for money too.
I am strongly opposed to the institutional support of non-governmental organisations; LIFE + must not be used to underwrite such bodies’ administrative costs, but to fund projects that are of practical benefit to the environment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples