Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-171"

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	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061023.20.1-171"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-23-Speech-1-1722
lpv:speaker	lp:Françoise Grossetête2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2007-02-14)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Gulf States, including Yemen (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Commissioner, during the first reading, our message concerned the limited funds allocated to LIFE+. Today, the European Parliament is interested in sending a clear message to the Council and the Commission. Under no circumstances can we accept that 80% of the credits for LIFE+ should be delegated to the Member States for management by national agencies. Why is this unacceptable? It is because environmental policy is one of the European policies most highly regarded by Europeans and seen by them as being one of the most transparent. One wonders for what possible reason the Commission should want to abandon this opportunity to show people the direct impact of a Community policy on their everyday lives. There is no sense in this, particularly at a time when we are being criticised for a lack of communication with citizens. LIFE+ is an indispensable financial instrument for all our environmental policies. Yet there is such inconsistency. In session after session we are voting for strong environmental commitments in the framework of sustainable development, while LIFE+ is being whittled away. In this too, moreover, we are not in agreement with the Council. Handing over responsibility for 80% of the funding to the Member States means taking the risk of causing all our commitments to fail and seeing this funding diverted from its initial objective. Yes, Commissioner, we are all in favour of LIFE+, but not in the guise that you are proposing. We must retain a centralised model managed by the Commission, with projects selected on the basis of their merits and the added value they will bring. As you are well aware, we shall otherwise face the watering down of our environmental policy. Renationalisation is not the right solution. We must use these resources not to pay civil servants but to launch and fund projects."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph