Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-132"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-24"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Selgitused hääletuse kohta⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061024.26.2-132"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-24-Speech-2-133⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Caroline Jackson⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²²
lpv:translated text	"Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@cs¹ "Selv om jeg tror på, at pengene fra Life-programmet har udrettet noget godt, har problemet været den alt for store efterspørgsel i forhold til udbuddet og vanskeligheden ved at overvåge, hvad der foregår, fordi det involverer temmelig små udbetalinger til et stort antal projekter, og denne betænkning tager ikke fat på disse problemer. I 2003 tog Revisionsretten fat på Life-programmet og fandt, at bidragsmodtagerne ikke førte et tilstrækkelig gennemskueligt og detaljeret regnskab. Penge fra Life-programmet blev også brugt til omfattende opkøb af jord, hvor der var utilstrækkelig garanti for, at denne jord fortsat ville blive brugt til naturbeskyttelsesformål, når gennemførelsesperioden for programmet var forbi. Revisionsretten spurgte, om Kommissionen havde etableret et tilstrækkeligt forvaltningssystem. Svaret er, at sådan som fonden i øjeblikket er organiseret, kan Kommissionen ikke gøre det. Det er derfor helt acceptabelt og fornuftigt, at forvaltningsrollen bliver overdraget til medlemsstaterne. Det betyder, at miljøprogrammerne vil lide under, at penge fra Life-programmet bliver trukket tilbage, men pengene kan anvendes bedre og overvåges på en mere gennemskuelig måde."@da² ". Ich glaube zwar, dass mit der LIFE-Finanzierung gute Arbeit geleistet wurde, aber das Problem ist, dass die Nachfrage das Angebot übersteigt und dass es schwierig ist, die Vorgänge zu überwachen, weil es um eher kleine Beträge für eine große Zahl von Projekten geht, und diese Fragen kommen in dem vorliegenden Bericht nicht zur Sprache. Im Jahre 2003 hat der Rechnungshof das LIFE-Programm geprüft und festgestellt, dass die Buchführung der Empfänger weder transparent noch detailliert genug war. Man hat außerdem festgestellt, dass LIFE-Geld in erheblichem Umfang für den Erwerb von Grundstücken verwendet wurde, wo für die weitere Nutzung dieser Grundstücke für Naturschutzzwecke über den Durchführungszeitraum der Maßnahmen hinaus keine ausreichenden Garantien vorhanden waren. Der Rechnungshof stellte die Frage, ob die Kommission ein geeignetes Verwaltungssystem eingerichtet hat. Die Antwort lautet, dass so, wie der Fonds derzeit organisiert ist, die Kommission dies nicht tun kann. Deshalb ist es vollkommen akzeptabel und sinnvoll, dass die Verwaltungsrolle auf die Mitgliedstaaten übertragen wird. Das bedeutet nicht, dass Umweltprogramme unter dem Abzug von LIFE-Geld leiden werden, sondern dass das Geld besser ausgegeben und transparenter überwacht werden könnte."@de⁹ "Παρότι πιστεύω ότι η χρηματοδότηση του LIFE έχει επιτελέσει θετικό έργο, το πρόβλημα είναι η υπερβολική ζήτηση σε σχέση με την προσφορά και η δυσκολία εποπτείας όσων συμβαίνουν, επειδή αφορά αρκετά μικρές πληρωμές σε έναν μεγάλο αριθμό προγραμμάτων και η παρούσα έκθεση δεν επιλαμβάνεται αυτών των θεμάτων. Το 2003 το Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο εξέτασε το σχέδιο LIFE και διαπίστωσε ότι οι οικονομικοί δικαιούχοι παρέλειψαν να τηρήσουν επαρκώς διαφανείς και λεπτομερείς λογαριασμούς. Διαπιστώθηκε επίσης ότι χρήματα του LIFE ενέχονταν σε σημαντικές αγορές εκτάσεων για τις οποίες δεν παρέχονταν επαρκείς εγγυήσεις ότι θα συνέχιζαν να χρησιμοποιούνται για σκοπούς διατήρησης της φύσης μόλις τελείωνε η περίοδος εφαρμογής των μέτρων. Το Δικαστήριο ρώτησε κατά πόσον η Επιτροπή είχε θεσπίσει ένα επαρκές σύστημα διαχείρισης. Η απάντηση είναι ότι, όπως είναι η παρούσα οργάνωση του ταμείου, η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να πράξει κάτι τέτοιο. Είναι, συνεπώς, απολύτως αποδεκτό και εύλογο ο ρόλος της διαχείρισης να μεταβιβαστεί στα κράτη μέλη. Αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι τα περιβαλλοντικά σχέδια θα υποστούν ζημία από την απόσυρση των χρημάτων του LIFE, αλλά ότι τα χρήματα μπορούν να δαπανώνται καλύτερα και να εποπτεύονται με πιο διαφανή τρόπο."@el¹⁰ ". Aunque yo creo que la financiación a través de LIFE ha sido muy útil, el problema ha sido el exceso de demanda sobre la oferta y la dificultad de supervisar lo que está ocurriendo porque ello implica realizar pagos muy pequeños a un elevado número de proyectos y este informe no aborda estas cuestiones. En 2003, el Tribunal de Cuentas examinó el programa LIFE y descubrió que las cuentas de los beneficiarios económicos no eran suficientemente transparentes y detalladas. Asimismo, se descubrió que el dinero de LIFE estaba relacionado con grandes compras de terreno que no ofrecían suficientes garantías de que esos terrenos siguieran utilizándose para la conservación de la naturaleza una vez finalizado el período de ejecución las acciones. El Tribunal preguntó si la Comisión había establecido un sistema de gestión apropiado. La respuesta es que, tal y como está organizado actualmente el fondo, la Comisión no puede hacerlo. Por tanto, es perfectamente aceptable y razonable que se devuelva la gestión a los Estados miembros. Esto no significa que los programas ambientales vayan a verse perjudicados por la retirada del dinero de LIFE, sino que el dinero podrá gastarse mejor y supervisarse con mayor transparencia."@es²⁰ "Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@et⁵ "Vaikka katsonkin Life-rahoituksen tuottaneen hyviä tuloksia, ongelmana ovat olleet liiallinen kysyntä tarjontaan nähden ja valvontaan liittyvät vaikeudet, koska kyse on verrattain pienistä maksuista suurelle joukolle hankkeita. Mietinnössä ei käsitellä näitä kysymyksiä. Tilintarkastustuomioistuin tutki vuonna 2003 Life-rahoitusvälinettä ja havaitsi, ettei tuensaajien kirjanpito ollut riittävän avointa eikä yksityiskohtaista. Samoin todettiin, että Life-rahoitusta oli käytetty huomattaviin maakauppoihin, joissa ei annettu riittäviä takeita siitä, että kyseistä maa-aluetta käytettäisiin jatkossakin luonnonsuojelutarkoituksiin toimien täytäntöönpanokauden päätyttyä. Tilintarkastustuomioistuin kysyi, oliko komissio luonut asianmukaisen hallinnointijärjestelmän. Vastaus kuuluu, ettei komissio voi tehdä niin nykyisessä rahoitustilanteessa. Näin ollen on täysin hyväksyttävää ja järkevää, että hallinnointitehtävä siirretään jäsenvaltioille. Tämä ei tarkoita sitä, että ympäristöhankkeet joutuisivat kärsimään Life-rahoituksen peruuttamisesta vaan että varat voidaan käyttää paremmin ja niiden käyttöä voidaan valvoa avoimemmin."@fi⁷ "Si je pense que les fonds de LIFE ont été très utiles, le problème a été la demande excessive par rapport à l’offre et la difficulté à superviser ce qui se passe, car il s’agit de paiements relativement petits à un grand nombre de projets, et ce rapport n’aborde pas ces problèmes. En 2003, la Cour des comptes a examiné le programme LIFE et a découvert que les bénéficiaires ne tenaient pas des comptes suffisamment transparents et détaillés. On a découvert que des fonds de LIFE étaient impliqués dans d’importants achats de terrains, où les garanties que ces terrains continueraient à être utilisés à des fins de protection de la nature, une fois la phase de mise en œuvre des actions terminée, étaient insuffisantes. La Cour a demandé si la Commission avait mis en place un système de gestion adéquat. La Commission ne peut le faire, vu la manière dont les fonds sont actuellement organisés. Il est donc tout à fait acceptable et sensé de conférer le rôle de gestion aux États membres. Cela ne signifie pas que les programmes environnementaux souffriront du retrait des fonds de LIFE, mais que cet argent peut être mieux dépensé et être contrôlé de manière plus transparente."@fr⁸ "Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@hu¹¹ "Benché io creda che il finanziamento del programma LIFE abbia dato buoni frutti, il problema consiste nell’eccesso della domanda rispetto all’offerta e nella difficoltà di monitorare ciò che sta accadendo, dal momento che riguarda versamenti abbastanza esigui a fronte di un gran numero di progetti, e la relazione non si occupa di tali questioni. Nel 2003 la Corte dei conti ha esaminato il programma LIFE e ha rilevato che i beneficiari del finanziamento non avevano tenuto conti sufficientemente trasparenti e dettagliati. Si è anche scoperto che alcuni dei finanziamenti di LIFE venivano utilizzati per acquistare terreni di considerevole valore quando non c’erano sufficienti garanzie che, una volta concluso il periodo di esecuzione degli interventi, questi terreni sarebbero stati ancora impiegati per scopi di conservazione della natura. La Corte ha chiesto se la Commissione avesse istituito un sistema di gestione adeguato. La risposta è che, per come il Fondo è attualmente organizzato, la Commissione non può farlo. Quindi è del tutto accettabile e sensato delegare agli Stati membri il ruolo gestionale. Questo non significa che i programmi ambientali non beneficeranno più dei finanziamenti LIFE, ma che questi finanziamenti possono essere impiegati meglio e gestiti in modo più trasparente."@it¹² "Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@lt¹⁴ "Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@lv¹³ "Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@mt¹⁵ "Hoewel ik van mening ben dat er via Life goed werk is verzet, is het probleem dat de vraag groter is dan het aanbod. Daarnaast is het moeilijk om toezicht te houden op wat er met het geld gebeurt omdat het om redelijk kleine bedragen gaat die voor een groot aantal projecten zijn bestemd. In het verslag wordt aan deze kwesties geen aandacht besteed. In 2003 heeft de Rekenkamer het Life-programma geëvalueerd en geconstateerd dat de financiële begunstigden geen afdoende transparante en gedetailleerde boekhouding konden overleggen. Life-geld is bijvoorbeeld ook gebruikt voor de aankoop van aanzienlijke percelen grond waarbij er onvoldoende garanties zijn of die gebieden ook na afloop van de tenuitvoerleggingsperiode van de acties nog steeds voor natuurbehoud gebruikt worden. De Rekenkamer heeft de Commissie gevraagd of er een adequaat beheersysteem ontwikkeld is. Gezien de huidige structuur van Life moet de Commissie die vraag ontkennend beantwoorden. Het is dan ook volkomen aanvaardbaar en logisch dat de beheertaak aan de lidstaten wordt overgedragen. Dat betekent niet dat er Life-geld aan milieuprojecten onttrokken zal worden, maar het betekent wel dat het geld beter besteed kan worden en het toezicht daarop een effectiever karakter krijgt."@nl³ "Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@pl¹⁶ "Embora esteja convencida de que o financiamento do LIFE permitiu realizar um bom trabalho, o problema tem sido o excesso de procura em relação à oferta, e a dificuldade em supervisionar o que se passa, pois envolve pagamentos relativamente diminutos para um grande número de projectos, e o presente relatório não incide sobre estas questões. Em 2003, o Tribunal de Contas analisou o esquema de financiamentos dos LIFE e detectou que os beneficiários financeiros não conseguiam manter contabilidades transparentes e detalhadas. Os financiamentos do LIFE chegaram a estar envolvidos em aquisições de terrenos sem que houvesse garantias suficientes de que tais terrenos continuariam a ser utilizados para fins de conservação da Natureza quando o período de execução das acções terminasse. O Tribunal perguntou se a Comissão tinha instituído um sistema de gestão adequado. A resposta é que, tal como o fundo se encontra presentemente organizado, a Comissão não pode fazer essa gestão. Nesta perspectiva, é perfeitamente aceitável e judicioso que o papel de gestor retorne para os Estados-Membros. Esta situação não significa que os programas ambientais sofram com a retirada do financiamento do LIFE, mas sim que esse dinheiro terá uma melhor aplicação e será supervisionado de uma forma mais transparente."@pt¹⁷ "Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@sk¹⁸ "Though I believe LIFE funding has done good work, the problem has been the excess of demand over supply and the difficulty of supervising what is going on because it involves fairly small payments to a large number of projects and this report does not address these issues. In 2003 the Court of Auditors looked at the LIFE scheme and found that financial beneficiaries failed to keep sufficiently transparent and detailed accounts. LIFE money was also found to be involved in substantial land purchases where there were insufficient guarantees that this land would continue to be used for nature conservation purposes once the implementation period for the actions was over. The Court asked whether the Commission had set up an adequate system of management. The answer is that, as the fund is currently organised, the Commission cannot do so. It is therefore perfectly acceptable and sensible for the management role to be devolved to the Member States. This does not mean that environmental schemes will suffer from the withdrawal of LIFE money, but that money may be better spent and more transparently supervised."@sl¹⁹ ". Även om jag anser att finansieringen från Life har bidragit till ett bra arbete, har problemet varit överskottet av efterfrågan i förhållande till tillgång och svårigheten med att övervaka det som pågår på grund av att programmet inbegriper ganska små utbetalningar till ett stort antal projekt, och i detta betänkande tas inte dessa frågor upp. Europeiska revisionsrätten såg över Lifeprogrammet 2003 och fann att ekonomiska mottagare misslyckades med att föra tillräckligt genomblickbara och noggranna räkenskaper. Man fann också att pengarna från Life var inblandade i omfattande markförvärv där det inte fanns tillräckliga garantier för att denna mark skulle fortsätta att användas i syfte att bevara miljön när genomförandeperioden för åtgärderna var över. Revisionsrätten ifrågasatte huruvida kommissionen hade fastställt ett adekvat förvaltningssystem. Svaret är att kommissionen inte kan göra det med tanke på hur fonden för närvarande är organiserad. Det är därför helt godtagbart och rimligt att förvaltningsuppgiften flyttas över till medlemsstaterna. Detta innebär dock inte att miljöprogrammen kommer att bli lidande av att pengar dras tillbaka från Life, utan att pengarna kan användas bättre och övervakas på ett sätt som medger mer insyn."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE ),"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "in writing"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4}