Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.12.2-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Union environmental programme, to which a considerable amount (EUR 613 million) has been allocated, gives rise to many questions regarding the proper use of public funds. A financial instrument of this order ought to be transparent and effective, and this is not the case for the following reasons: poorly defined selection criteria, dubious uncoordinated operations, assessments not made public and the lack of any assessment policy.
We are therefore proposing to amend the regulations as follows. Firstly, to reserve the acquisitions made thanks to LIFE funds exclusively to public bodies, subsequently, following invitation to tender, to entrust the management of these sites to authorised nature conservation associations. It is a question of the continuity of the ownership of the acquisitions, since private law associations may disappear or resell acquisitions. It is shocking in philosophical terms and dubious in legal terms for 100% public money to be used to build up a heritage of private land ownership, even under cover of environmental protection.
Secondly, to define the criteria for the eligibility and allocation of LIFE funds, in order to rule our any suspicions of clientelism or ostracism. Thirdly, to make prior coordination with the users and communities concerned a prerequisite. For example, the LIFE-Nature project in France, at Grand-Lieu Lake, planned without any coordination, led to a real ecological disaster, the de-silting operation which was carried out without regard for French law on the subject caused significant silting of the Acheneau, a water course located downstream, destroying spawning beds, filling wetlands, and who knows what else. The silt was in fact shifted 3 kilometres, at a cost of FF 6 million, the cure being worse than the disease, and a consequence that was foreseeable and actually predicted by the parties involved with the site. Result: a court action and repair costs greater than the cost of the programme itself. This is the sort of thing that we want to avoid.
Four, to include representatives of Parliament in the monitoring committee, at least one Member per political group. What could be fairer than for Members of Parliament to monitor the use of the appropriations they voted for? Fifthly, to publish an annual scientific, technical and financial assessment of LIFE operations carried out. Six, to carry out proper evaluation of the programmes on a regular basis. Seven, to make it possible for these funds to be used in the event of an environmental emergency: for example, in reforestation following storm damage, or restoration of the natural environment following an oil slick, etc.
Here, Mrs Lienemann, Mr President, we are putting forward here a practical proposal, a common sense proposal, easy to implement, likely to limit local conflicts and to vindicate the proper use of public monies, before increasing the LIFE budget line by as much as 40%!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples