Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-21-Speech-1-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070521.17.1-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, my first words of thanks today go, of course, to our rapporteur, Mrs Isler Béguin, and also to my fellow shadow rapporteurs, Mrs Liennemann and Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines, for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, with whom for two years – as they have said – we have constantly tried to convince the Commission, and above all the Member States, I would say, of the relevance of this Brussels-initiated and controlled environmental policy.
In this regard, let us not deny ourselves a good thing today: the outcome of the conciliation, which you publicised brilliantly on 27 March, Madam President, is a tremendous learning experience. In politics, we are fond of saying that fights are often won in adversity: the European Parliament’s delegation for Life+ will have provided the proof that fights can also be won in unity, beyond political divisions and in the general interest of the citizens, of Europeans.
My second remark is that I note that the European Commission has nothing to gain from limiting itself to a common role, I would say, when the Treaties grant it clear responsibilities, such as those in the field of environmental policy.
Mrs Isler Béguin has already done a brilliant job of summing up all the progress made by this conciliation. I shall not go back over it. For my part, I should like to emphasise what I feel is our most symbolic shared success: I mean, of course, the gaining of a Nature and biodiversity section, which should cover at least 50% of the budgetary revenue, of the operational budgetary resources. It was crucial to increase this funding for Natura 2000. Firstly, I would say, because Natura 2000 is going well. Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines mentioned the pride of those who were due to receive this funding. In the Brussels-Capital region, which I know well, there are no fewer than 2 333 hectares, or 14% of the regional territory, with the famous Sonian Forest and the Woluwe Valley, among others, that are part of these protected sites. At EU level, the figures also very much speak for themselves: Natura 2000 consists of more than 25 000 sites; it is a network that is present in 16 capitals and that covers nearly 20% of the terrestrial area of the EU-27.
Next, as Mr Adamou and other Members pointed out in the preceding debate, the European Union committed itself, in 2001 in Gothenburg, to halting the loss of this biodiversity by 2010: three years from that deadline, we are far from having fulfilled that commitment, and that is an understatement.
True, the budget for Life+ may seem obscene, is obscene: 1.51% of the EU annual budget, or EUR 1 894 billion over seven years, but I remain hopeful that the European Union, the Member States, and the regions and towns will come into line with the aim of guaranteeing the ongoing funding of Natura 2000. I also hope that we will not be told that, with EUR 308 billion, or the combined budget of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, the budgetary resources are not enough to protect the environment. This is nothing more and nothing less than a question of priority and of credibility with regard to the citizens of Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples