Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.5.2-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"All the Members in the Union for a Europe of Nations Group voted in favour of almost the whole of the Procacci report on the LEADER + Community Initiative. However, we amended the draft report adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in order to clarify certain points which will make this Community initiative more effective.
In particular we felt it was necessary to simplify the administrative and financial procedures which proved to be too cumbersome and slow in the LEADER II initiative. It was also essential to ensure that better account is taken of the development priorities of local operators and that the benefit of LEADER + funds is not limited solely to agricultural regions with a low population density.
Amendment No 10 which I tabled on behalf of my group refers to the concept of ‘economic and social cohesion’ rather than ‘regional development’ as the European Union does not have any recognised competence in this area.
Amendment No 11 replaces ‘government or municipal officials’ with ‘government officials’. Although local action groups should consist of a balanced and representative selection of partners drawn from the different socio-economic sectors of the territory concerned, government officials must be involved at decision-making level, whether they come from the municipalities, departments, regions or national governments. The rapporteur’s phrasing was therefore too limiting.
Amendment No 12 responds to the expectations of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism of this House. It specifies the necessary coordination between LEADER + and Community cooperation and partnership programmes such as INTERREG, PHARE, Sapard or MEDA. In the territory of Member States of the European Union, applicant countries or Member States of EFTA, there may be interrelations between the various Community initiatives. The real priority for the European continent is to establish an operational level within a European framework and not a global framework as proposed by the rapporteur. The creation of organisations similar to the LAGs may be usefully encouraged by the European Union, provided that the corresponding costs are borne by the various partners.
In essence, we are, of course, in favour of this LEADER + Community Initiative. The conference on rural development held in Cork from 7 to 9 November 1996 set rural development as one of the European Union’s priorities since it is essential to preserve the integrity of our agriculture and the whole rural fabric, including infrastructure, public and private services and so on. In this context, in committee we regretted the paltry funding allotted to rural development and supported the amendments calling for an increased budget for this Community initiative so that it matches the previous LEADER I and LEADER II initiatives. The budget allocated to LEADER + for a period of seven years is half that allocated to LEADER II for a period of six years. This is unacceptable given the importance of rural development and the consequences for farmers of the fall in prices and aid specified in the reform of the CAP following the Berlin agreements.
Finally, among the priority parameters to be introduced at European level to enable local involvement, particular attention must be paid to the quality and originality of projects which have already been implemented by LAGs within the LEADER II initiative, but which could not be concluded due to the timetable and weight of the management mechanisms specified."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples