Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-281"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.11.2-281"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as the Natura 2000 network is being established almost everywhere in Europe, against the advice of the rural community and with disastrous consequences for man, I regret that the report on biodiversity has been hastily debated in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. This is, however, an important subject, affecting areas that the Union is considering, such as the protection of natural resources and the relaunch of the development policy, as well as the new objectives for agriculture and fisheries, for example. Drawing up national strategies or action plans on biodiversity could only be contemplated if they were drafted after a broad consensus had been reached, respecting regional socio-economic interests.
As for enlargement and the rapporteur’s proposal to select a flagship project on the protection of biodiversity, we must not forget that the candidate countries want to join the Union in order to make up for their economic and social shortfalls as quickly as possible and to modernise their infrastructures. Biodiversity is not their main concern.
I regret the fact that the four amendments that I tabled in committee were all rejected, even the amendment in which I called for a CAP that respects the environment as well as those working in the rural community. Several points in this report give me cause for concern and, in particular, the desire to introduce certification for the timber sector and for animal species seems unrealistic in my view, given the considerable diversity in forests and living species. What added value does this kind of certification provide? What has happened to the desire to increase the financial resources granted to Natura 2000 and to other measures on biodiversity? Why continue along a path that is, increasingly, called into question by the people, landowners, farmers and users? Who will pay for the introduction of a strict protection system beyond the zones specified in the birds and habitat directives? Are we moving towards a situation where the entire territory will be divided into zones? What are we aiming to achieve with this maximum protection approach towards biodiversity? When reading this report, I wonder whether, in the rapporteur’s mind, man is still included in this biodiversity. In our view, there is no doubt that he is."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples