Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-07-Speech-4-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050707.4.4-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I wish to thank the speakers for their constructive remarks and their concerns regarding Natura 2000 in particular. The Commission believes that the current environment programmes have served their purpose. LIFE-Nature and LIFE-Environment have been excellent catalysts but, as set out in the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme, have done little for the development of environmental policy.
Turning to the amendments in detail, the Commission can accept in principle Amendments 9, 32 and 33. The Commission can accept Amendment 25 in part, as amended by Amendment 43. The Commission cannot accept any other amendments.
In conclusion, the LIFE + proposal offers a flexible financial instrument for the environment. I hope that we can find common ground in the short term to take this proposal forward.
LIFE + sets out to make a difference. Its purpose is to provide funding for policy development, but it would also permit, for example, local and regional actors to spread best practice for dealing with environmental implementation issues. Spending on tangible environmental investment is best integrated into the funds that have financial muscle, those in rural and regional development areas.
I have already referred to the present success of the Commission’s integration policy. On 21 June the Agricultural Council adopted the Rural Development Fund Regulation. This sets out that farmers and private forest owners can receive compensation for costs incurred and income foregone because of Natura 2000 actions. Under that regulation, as regards farm investments, enhancement of the public amenity of a Natura 2000 area is eligible for support and the drawing-up of management plans relating to Natura 2000 can be financed.
The Council foresees a budget of EUR 82.75 billion to accompany the regulation. At least 25% of that amount – or EUR 22.2 billion – would be allocated
to compensate farmers and private forest owners in connection with Natura 2000. Moreover, it is entirely possible for Member States to focus an even bigger share of their national envelope on Natura 2000 financing if they so wish. Two days ago the Commission also adopted the strategic guidelines for both rural and regional spending. The rural guidelines refer to Natura and the regional guidelines, clearly, to nature and species protection. The Commission is, therefore, delivering on the integration of the environment into other policy areas.
Turning to LIFE + and the proposed amendments, the Commission finds it difficult to take into account most of the amendments of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to this proposal. I am aware of the 44 amendments tabled by that committee and of a further four by the Committee on Budgets. I should like to divide these amendments into three distinct blocks.
First, on scope: unfortunately, the majority of the amendments seek to enlarge the scope of the proposal. This runs counter to the Commission’s agreed integrated approach. Many amendments concern Natura 2000, others set out more precisely what is already indicated in the text, for example, forest monitoring, networking, awareness-raising and NGO financing. In addition, certain aspects, such as eco-innovation are clearly covered by other programmes, in this case by the competitiveness and innovation programme. To contain this in LIFE + would introduce the risk of the double financing of projects, something the Court of Auditors feels very strongly about.
Secondly, on procedure: the Commission could accept some of the amendments in principle, for example those relating to assessing the impact quality of the programme. However, others regarding the adoption of multiannual plans by codecision, would lead to a sclerosis in programme implementation. Clearly, therefore, this could not be accepted. In a similar way, the Commission cannot accept the additional demands arising in respect of the comitology procedure.
Lastly, on the budget, which is the most complex and difficult proposal for the Commission to deal with: the report on LIFE + increases its proposed budget by EUR 21 billion, but an amendment has been tabled to reduce this proposal to EUR 7.35 billion. However, I am also aware that the Committee on Budgets proposed a zero budget for LIFE +. Similarly, the Temporary Committee on the Financial Perspectives did not put a budget figure on the table for LIFE +.
If Parliament were to provide an additional budget of EUR 7.35 billion for the environment, the Commission would do its utmost to ensure that these funds were properly included in the relevant structural programmes, thereby supporting Natura 2000. In its turn, DG Environment would do all it could to ensure that such funds were effectively and efficiently spent on Natura 2000 matters."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples