Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-168"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:LIFE+ – Financing of the Natura 2000 network2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061023.20.1-168"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-23-Speech-1-1692
lpv:speaker	lp:Dimitrios Papadimoulis2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras ton Kinimaton kai tis Oikologias (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; EMPL (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for her exceptional report and her strong position as regards the demands of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in connection with LIFE+. A key point is to secure adequate resources for the Natura 2000 programme. That is why I heartily support the call for another EUR 50 billion to be added to the LIFE+ budget. If we leave the 50 million in the margin, with just one political commitment, as called for by the Council, we shall have no clear guarantee. I also support the call by the Committee on the Environment for 55% of LIFE+ to be allocated to nature and biodiversity, which are issues of critical importance in the effort to achieve the corresponding objective of the European Union. In all events, the additional EUR 100 million agreed within the framework of the financial perspective should be committed to above the 40% proposed by the Council. If the percentage remains 40%, this essentially will mean a proportional reduction in the corresponding funding for biodiversity in comparison with the previous financial perspective and that is unacceptable. Finally, I agree with the rapporteur, who has reacted to the Commission's proposal to grant 80% of resources to the Member States, thereby giving them a blank cheque. The resources for LIFE+ are not there for the Member States to plug financial gaps, but to promote joint European programmes. Commissioner, you know full well that, in the country we both come from, money often goes to cover wages rather than to protect the Natura 2000 network. We want a strong European policy; all of us in the European Parliament want more Europe for environmental protection. If the Commission wants the same, then why does it not stand up for it against the Council?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph