Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050222.12.2-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I support the concept of integrating care for the environment into other policies such as the structural funds, agricultural funds and so on. However, anyone who cares for the environment knows that the Member States cannot necessarily be trusted to make integration work. We have heard much about that this afternoon.
I would like to draw the Commissioner's attention to the following point: some states have been very slow to designate Natura 2000 sites at all. Four countries – the Netherlands, France, Italy and Finland – have Court judgments against them for inadequate designation of special protection areas for birds. Only one country in the EU – the Netherlands – has completed its designation of special areas for conservation.
These sites make up the Natura 2000 list, so how can we possibly be happy to leave the financing to Member States when they cannot be trusted to nominate the sites? It is a triumph of hope over experience to suppose that Member States will provide adequate funding for Natura 2000, unless the incentives of specific co-financing for it are on offer via the EU budget. If and when Mr Dimas replies to the debate, I would like to ask him to give us some up-to-date news on exactly how Natura 2000 is progressing. Are a number of Member States still not in contact with the Commission on the designation of sites, or is the network now complete?
Second, those who want EU funding for all the Natura 2000 sites have to guard against overbidding. We need the assurance that care will be integrated into Natura 2000 via the structural funds. We also need funding via the annual bidding process for the special needs of certain Natura 2000 sites, possibly through the establishment of a biodiversity programme within the LIFE+ Programme.
The Commission has never liked the LIFE Programme. It involves very few officials doing a lot of very hard work trying to track down what is happening to very small amounts of money. There is no doubt that it would be administratively convenient for the Commission completely to wind up the LIFE Programme
But it would be wrong to do this, Commissioner. You might say that what you are trying to do is effective, but my colleagues and I believe it is wrong."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples