Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.7.2-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the LIFE III second reading debate held here back in February, we concluded that this regulation was better than the LIFE I and LIFE II regulations. It was better because it was more rigorous, more transparent and more rational. It was better because it established the promotion of employment as a factor to be taken into consideration when selecting potential projects. It was better because it established the reduction of the global impact of products, from manufacture to recycling and disposal, as one of the objectives that LIFEEnvironment should achieve. Lastly, it was better because it established the improvement and planning of coastal areas as one of LIFEEnvironment’s priorities.
Despite these positive points, there remained four areas of disagreement between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and these were dealt with under the conciliation procedure. These areas were the budget, comitology, provision for a fourth stage of LIFE and the objectives of LIFEEnvironment. The work under the conciliation procedure added further improvements to the LIFE III regulation and we can say quite simply that, although we lost on the issue of comitology, we managed to get our views across on the essential issues.
I therefore congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Lienemann, both on her work at first and second reading and on her work during the conciliation procedure. I would like to highlight what I think are the two most relevant points. With regard to the budget for the period 2000-2004, which was the main issue at stake, we would clearly have preferred to agree on an amount closer to EUR 850 million – the sum proposed by the European Parliament – than the EUR 613 million set by the Commission and the Council. Nevertheless, as they say, politics is the art of the possible, and if we had not agreed, as we finally did in conciliation, on an amount of EUR 640 million, we would have ended up bearing the political responsibility for leaving thousands of projects in limbo and without financial support for the year 2000. In any event, we told the Commission and the Council once again that, as far as Parliament is concerned, although these appropriations are more than the common position provided for, they still fall short of the sum that LIFE has demonstrated it deserves.
I should also like to express my satisfaction with the agreement that has enabled us to integrate the sustainable management of water and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the objectives for LIFEEnvironment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples