Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-162"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.20.1-162"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, there are two parts to my speech. In the first part, I shall put the oral question on Natura 2000 by Mr Florenz, who is not present and who has asked me to speak on his behalf.
We therefore advocate in the clearest and strongest terms a more centralised model in which Europe once again provides guidance and initiative. We understand that the Commission has a lack of resources. We are going to support it in the future, where possible, because this policy of reducing the number of officials cannot carry on.
Unless Europe has a management structure and management capacities, as well as qualified personnel, it will not be able to carry out this task. With a view to its being able to do so, we undoubtedly believe that part of the management should be returned to the European Commission and that international European projects should be created, so that Europe can improve its capacities in the future, by means of ‘capacity building’, in order to ensure that projects are better monitored, to find ways to coordinate policies and to continue taking action that cuts across policy areas.
That is our proposal, and we shall cooperate fully in the conciliation process so that we can reach a quick agreement, so that funding can be guaranteed and, of course, so that the Commission can do its job. That is precisely why we are here: in order to cooperate with the Commission and tell the Member States that the policy of sustainability is a process and that Europe is more than just a market.
The question is as follows: since the Commission estimates that EUR 6.1 billion per year is needed to maintain and conserve the Natura 2000 protected areas, and since the funding is expected to come from the rural development funds, the Structural Funds, LIFE+ and the fisheries funds, how does the Commission intend to coordinate this policy? How does the Commission intend to send clear messages about its coordinated policy to users, to proprietors and to those who are in charge of Natura 2000 land. Where are the funds? What actions must be taken? How accessible is European Union protection and aid?
This is something that is still not clear. Matters need to be drawn up in a very clear way so that there can be full genuine communication between the proprietors and the Commission.
With regard to LIFE+, I agree with everything Mrs Isler Béguin has said. The results of the vote reflect a genuine agreement within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, though there may be discrepancies and differing positions due to the diverging views of the different States. Why? Because the new LIFE+ now being presented represents a decentralised policy and is very different to the policy in place until now.
We believe that LIFE has traditionally been a leader programme for funding innovation projects and innovative management models, particularly in the field of the environment. It is a prestige programme, which NGOs have looked upon as a guide and a model. For local and regional authorities, it has become a path that must be followed, a permanent reference. We want that reference to remain.
This has, however, been the case because emphasis has been placed on the universal nature of environmental policy, a factor that has been one of the reasons for the success of European policy in this field.
Europe knows that environmental policy cannot just be applied to a single region. It requires a global approach. The European Union has always made this clear, and the 6th Environmental Action Programme has taken that into account at all times.
Policy in the fields of climate change, desertification, water, waste, safeguarding quality of life, well-being and pollution are all of a universal nature, and that is why we want it to be applied beyond Europe and for Europe to become a model for the whole world.
We should remember, however, that LIFE was created in order to bring this about, and that is stated in the text of the financial statement, which I am going to read and which states that LIFE+ credit ‘is intended to fund economic contributions for actions intended to apply, update and implement Community legislation and policy in the field of the environment, including the integration of the environment into other policies’. How can we do this if the policy is only national? How can we do this if Europe loses its leadership, if it leaves these actions in the hands of the Member States?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples