Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-172"

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	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050222.12.2-172"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-02-22-Speech-2-1732
lpv:speaker	lp:Ambroise Guellec2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-16--2007-03-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; REGI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; PECH (2004-07-22--2005-06-26)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the Commission’s Communication on the financing of Natura 2000 lists various possibilities for dealing with the needs that will arise during the 2007-2013 period. It concludes, as the Commissioner pointed out, that the creation of a new financial instrument is not the appropriate formula. I completely agree with this point of view, even though it has not been expressed a great deal here this afternoon. The Natura 2000 areas proposed by the Member States are eligible as priorities, in the majority of cases, for the Cohesion and Structural Funds, and could be priorities for benefiting from Life funds for the costs of managing and monitoring the programmes. Why, therefore, should we want to distinguish the funding of Natura 2000 programmes from the funding of regional or rural policies? The actions in both cases are very much linked, whether the objectives are related to local development, protecting environments or maintaining biodiversity. There would be a huge risk that Natura 2000 would become completely disconnected from everything that was done elsewhere in the areas concerned. The obstacles encountered during the long – or even very long – period of defining the Natura 2000 areas would be multiplied, and the isolation of this mechanism, which is supposed to be exemplary, would be even greater. The other risk would be that it would be excessively complex to implement and manage programmes. This would result in an increase in operational costs and create the impression of a monumental technocracy that would be rejected by the populations concerned. Finally, it should be pointed out that the forecast costs of the programmes are very variable depending on the country and the Natura 2000 areas chosen. Intelligent use of the Structural Funds, to which additional funds under Life could possibly be added, would, in my view, enable us to respond to them much better than with a specific financial instrument."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph