Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-14-Speech-1-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000214.4.1-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, with the LEADER report, rural development is very much to the fore. This does not happen all that often and it is gratifying, especially as the LEADER programmes have been key elements in the Union’s rural development policy. It must be pointed out that these programmes have not only been instrumental in structuring regional planning, but have also been vital instruments for economic and social cohesion in often vulnerable areas such as, for example, areas experiencing depopulation. It must be stressed that in order to become eligible under the LEADER programme, local operators have combined forces, debated and prepared projects. These programmes have, therefore, been important channels for participative democracy, the rationale of the citizen for Europe. So, the concept for LEADER+ should retain all the positive aspects of previous programmes.
Moreover, I wonder at the reduced guidelines to which the Commission wishes to restrict LEADER+. At a time when, Commissioner, after Seattle, we Europeans are fighting on the grounds of multifunctionality in rural development projects, why should we confine ourselves to a few limited criteria with resources that are far from sufficient? As an ecologist, let met tell you that the precautionary principle and sustainable development require much more diversified and many-sided approaches.
In this connection, the Commission is proposing to limit yet further the cooperation actions of local action groups to only candidate countries. A better solution would be, as indeed the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism suggests, strengthened coordination between LEADER+ and the Community cooperation and partnership programmes, such as INTERREG, PHARE, SAPARD or MEDA. The fact is, showing solidarity with Eastern Europe, is all very well, but it is not enough. The tradition which has already been established by the previous programmes with the countries of the south, particularly the countries around the Mediterranean, must not be abandoned.
Therefore, once more, we can stress that what the area of agriculture and rural development really needs is codecision. Codecision would give us effective means to progress programmes of this type, which require cooperation and cross-disciplinary application."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"One urgent question is therefore raised: why, when this programme has been successfully run for ten years, is LEADER+ still classed as experimental? Are there so many other European schemes which can boast 800 specific original experiments which were particularly successful? For how much longer is the Commission going to leave LEADER at the experimental stage instead of bringing it online as part of the general concept of mainstreaming of rural development?"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples