Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.20.1-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank the Members for their very positive contributions and for the acknowledgement that the initial proposal – adopted by the Commission in September 2004, with the help of Parliament – has been improved considerably. What we have to strive for is a balanced solution. In this respect, I will try to facilitate an agreement between the Council and Parliament.
With regard to the amendments, I am aware of 31 amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and a further amendment introduced since last week. The late amendment, similar to what happened in the budget debate, encourages me to believe that Parliament wishes to help find a solution to the funding gap that the late adoption of LIFE+ will create. While the budget question will ultimately be solved by the budgetary authority, the Commission will do all it can to facilitate an agreement that, with your support, will provide funds to DG Environment throughout 2007.
Turning now to the 31 amendments on LIFE+, I will divide them into four distinct blocks. Firstly, on the delivery method, the Commission cannot accept the group of amendments opposing delegated programme management.
Secondly, on allocation of funds, the budget, ring-fencing etc., Parliament has tabled an amendment aiming at adding the whole EUR 100 million extra to the LIFE+ instrument. If Parliament and the Council were in agreement to allocate that amount to the LIFE+ programme, I would welcome the opportunity to see the programme expanded. Parliament also calls for at least 55% of LIFE+ funds to be allocated to the nature and biodiversity component. The Commission cannot accept this amendment, since it would reduce the flexibility needed by several Member States to tackle other pressing environmental concerns. The 40% in the common position is a minimum and nothing prevents Member States spending double that figure on nature and biodiversity if they so wish and can justify it.
Thirdly, with regard to comitology issues, the amendments seeking greater involvement by Parliament during the various phases of programming and introducing the regulatory procedure with scrutiny would be acceptable in principle.
Lastly, with regard to a series of amendments seeking clarification, greater transparency, etc., on questions such as the application of the Aarhus Convention, cross-border projects, specific reference to the impact of climate change on biodiversity, the role of the Commission in supporting integration, etc., my view is that these amendments could be acceptable to the Commission in principle, subject to some drafting changes.
I should like to repeat what I said earlier, namely that we should continue working together to find practical solutions, especially on the implementation method for LIFE+. In addition, together we need to solve the 2007 funding gap. I am heartened by Parliament’s good wishes in that respect.
We need a funding instrument for the environment in order to spend our EUR 2 billion budget. I am therefore willing to help find a practical compromise between the Council and Parliament on these issues and I am willing to help facilitate such an agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples