Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.20.1-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Isler Béguin, for her exceptional work and for her report on this proposal. I should also like to thank Mrs Gutiérrez for her very positive approach and to assure both ladies and all the Members of Parliament that the Commission will work to facilitate this approach and to achieve fast agreement with the Council.
As you know, delegated management is at the epicentre of the Commission proposal. The Member States are relying on it and are already preparing their draft programmes. That is why the Commission cannot accept the various amendments deleting all references to delegated management.
Unfortunately, the outcome of the informal meetings between Parliament, the Council and the Commission following the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on 14 September did not enable us to make significant steps towards achieving agreement as regards delegated management. Nonetheless, despite the differences, we are all in favour of the LIFE+ programme and of its being applied as soon as possible, so that funds can be disbursed and there is no delay in the execution of the programmes.
The Member States have over two billion euros for the LIFE+ programme. A way needs to be found so that this money is disbursed as quickly as possible, even if this means compromise on all sides. We must therefore continue to work together to find practical solutions, especially as regards the method of implementing LIFE+. Within this framework, we shall make every possible effort to bring about a compromise between the Council and Parliament and we shall intermediate in order to facilitate an agreement.
I must stress that, since September 2004 – when the College of Commissioners adopted the Commission proposal – about one year after first reading, we have made a great deal of progress with LIFE+ and the position of the European Commission has changed significantly on several counts in comparison with its initial proposal.
I believe that the Council's common position, with which the Commission agrees to a large extent, satisfies many of Parliament's basic demands. The draft regulation now includes a section relating to nature and biodiversity. LIFE+ will be able to fund measures and activities for exchanges of opinions and best practices or demonstration projects, including those relating to the management and designation of Natura 2000 sites and guidelines for habitats and birds.
The percentage of LIFE+ relating to the management of nature is large. At least 40% of the resources will be made available for expenditure in this sector. I should like to stress that this percentage is a minimum limit and that the Member States may spend a greater percentage if they so wish.
As far as the question of funding for Natura 2000 is concerned, the Commission has secured funding opportunities through the Structural Funds, the Fisheries Fund and the Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The Commission may, of course, encourage spending on Natura 2000; however, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States have the jurisdiction and discretion to decide on the extent to which they wish to make use of these funding opportunities.
The Commission, for its part, will do what it can to ensure the Member States make use of the funding opportunities whenever possible. The opinion of the Directorate General of the Environment is always sought before strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes for the Structural Funds and rural development programmes submitted by the Member States are approved.
I repeat that one of our top priorities is to safeguard suitable funding for Natura 2000 and that is why I particularly value Parliament's support on this issue.
However, the most important subject of debate this evening is the method of implementation of the programme. According to the common position, 80% of funding for LIFE+ is to be made available to the Member States. I consider that Parliament's preference for maintaining central management of the programme to be an indication of its confidence in the Commission. However, this choice, as I emphasised earlier, requires more human resources.
That is why the method proposed in the common position is preferable. First, it is in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, granting the greatest possible flexibility in order to cover the various requirements of the Member States. Secondly, it ensures that all the countries receive a minimum percentage of the funding. Within the framework of the current LIFE III system, they often do not receive any money. Thirdly, it is transparent and controlled and safeguards the maintenance of added value for the European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples