Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-154"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-02-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financing nature protection policy2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050222.12.2-154"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-02-22-Speech-2-1552
lpv:speaker	lp:Cristina Gutiérrez-cortines2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ITRE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Partido Popular (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; CONT (2005-01-18--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, we are all pleased that the Commission has dealt with the issues of the Natura 2000 Network, which relates to the LIFE Programme, for which I am shadow rapporteur. Nevertheless, I believe we are finding the situation very frustrating because the issue has been dealt with without taking account of the concepts which are essential to sustainability and, furthermore, we have made the old mistake of seeing Natura 2000 as a crystallised territory, with no life or activity. Since the first declaration of protected areas, Natura 2000, rather than bringing society pleasure, has become a problem. Nowhere wants to be declared a protected area, because there is no parallel support policy. It has become a constant battle. There has been no education about the exploitation of natural resources, nor of the true added value of the Natura Network, which generates and awakens enthusiasm. Furthermore, there has been hidden expropriation, since the use of land is much more restricted than before and, in many cases, the value of the land is reduced. It has therefore become a burden. So what is the problem with the document we are dealing with? Firstly, it does not recognise typologies. We cannot introduce the concept of Natura 2000 without looking at the great families of biodiversity, because each of them requires a different financial instrument. For example, how are the marine funds, which do not appear, to be managed by means of rural development? A separate Natura will have to be created. Neither are rivers treated as significant, while I believe they should be treated as an essential project. Neither is there any proper distinction between the different forest areas. There should at least have been an indication of an intention to produce a diversified policy. Finally, I would like to say that, if we did not introduce Natura into the market economy, we will not have achieved anything, because nature means life, economy and sustainability."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph