Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.20.1-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Florenz for his question. Last year, I was the rapporteur for Parliament’s report on the financing of Natura 2000. In that report, we expressed concern about the willingness of the Member States and of the Commission to take this issue seriously. There will be plenty of voices speaking out for the natural world when it is time for headline speeches. Just think how solemn the Heads of State or Government were in Gothenburg in 2001 in their assurances that Natura 2000 would be implemented. Yet, for all that, everything was forgotten when it came to the budget being adopted, when the separate budget heading for Natura 2000 was rejected point blank. Now it will be interesting to see whether those promises are recalled when the agricultural lobbyists again try to ensure that all the subsidies, including the rural development funds, go to large-scale agriculture and to industry. The Commission will have to be stricter in this area. The slackness and lack of supervision that have been the case up to now are on the point of having disastrous consequences, first and foremost for the natural world, but also for the reputation of the EU, as many of my fellow MEPs have mentioned today. For many people, the protection of nature and the environment is one of the pivotal benefits of the EU. We politicians, when we have had to defend and expound upon the necessity of European cooperation, have continually made reference to what the EU can do in this area. At present, however, many experience an indifference on the part of the EU in respect of those values that cannot quickly be converted into money.
Rapid action needs to be taken if our good name is to be rescued. The Commission should make it a condition for the payment of, in particular, rural development funds that the Member States put forward plans and also appropriate sufficient resources to Natura 2000. It should remember also to remind agriculturalists that the rural development funds do not constitute agriculturalists’ own private money. Natura 2000 must receive its share, and without agriculture receiving compensation for this. Agriculture should bear its share of responsibility for the health and diversity of nature. This would be good news for everyone in rural areas. There are splendid opportunities for money-making in the development of Natura 2000. We know, for example, that approximately a quarter of a million people are engaged in the protection of nature, while the potential in the tourism sector is greater still."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples