Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-325"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.20.3-325"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first and foremost, my thanks to all the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their constructive cooperation. Immediately after the voting on Monday, I thought that perhaps the report had come to resemble a Christmas tree when a newly-married couple combine their Christmas traditions for the first time. After more careful study, however, I can clearly see that the tree is not only decorated but also maintains a consistent theme.
Firstly, it has now been established that Natura 2000 is to be funded. The amount is not up for negotiation. We have international commitments, and nature will need help for the foreseeable future. The European Environment Agency in Copenhagen has, time after time, drawn attention to the alarming situation, and we need to reverse the trend. Consequently, to include the Commission’s own minimum amount of EUR 21.35 billion for 2007-2013 in the report is merely stating facts, because this amount is not up for discussion. We only know that if we do not get moving right away, matters will simply become more and more expensive day by day. I have seen in Poland how huge Danish and American pig farms are spreading out over a fine and vulnerable landscape with no regard for biodiversity. In Denmark, many farmers are bagging pollution permits in Natura 2000 areas. As a result, they will be able to earn a pretty penny when the government wants to buy them back. This type of behaviour must be stopped.
What is actually up for negotiation is how the money is to be obtained. In this respect, it is pleasing that the Committee is united in believing that Natura 2000 should be incorporated not just into rural development policy, but also in a broader framework. Just as the Commission has stated, Natura 2000 must be incorporated into all EU policies. The committee has, however, been even more realistic than the Commission. We mention environmental considerations generally and not just Natura 2000, and we know that the goal cannot be achieved unless amounts are earmarked in these funds and conditions introduced. To date, we have seen little sign of environmental considerations, despite the fact it is already possible to incorporate them into the funds. On the contrary, the funds often work against the countryside. If, however, consideration for the countryside is integral to the way the funds are used, farmers will then have an interest in the environment and in environment-friendly farming and other production in the areas concerned, earning twice as much in the process. I am convinced that this will heighten their sense of the wealth that biodiversity represents – including in economic terms, as the Commission has, moreover, so rightly pointed out.
There are small areas that cannot be helped via the funds. For these, we must use the ‘LIFE+’ dedicated fund, which is also designed to ensure that management and other organisational tasks are carried out. More than once we emphasise the need for the rural development fund in particular – in other words, the second pillar of the common agricultural policy – to be significantly increased, if the task is to be achieved in a justifiable way and in harmony with those who are to implement it. Naturally, we can call for more money in the budget for this purpose, but it is more relevant and realistic to obtain a considerable part of the money from the first pillar of the common agricultural policy, where the really large amounts of EU funding are committed. We must not forget, however, that a substantial part of the amount must come from the Member States. It is their commitment, and I believe it is important that we emphasise that the Member States have an obligation themselves and that this is not something to be funded solely by the EU. After all, it would be appalling if we expanded the idea of the eternal existence of subsidies – as we know all too well from agricultural policy, where the Member States are now of the opinion that practically the whole thing should be paid for by the Community. No, they must pay for this themselves. Cofinancing by the EU is above all an important helping hand, and we expect that, in any event, half of it will be covered via the EU’s budgets and thus, primarily, via the funds.
Parliament must now have confidence that both the Commission and the Member States will comply with their responsibilities, listen to Parliament and incorporate Natura 2000 into all the relevant policies. The heads of government made a commitment to do so in Gothenburg and on various occasions subsequently, and this is something they owe both to the citizens of the EU and to our descendants."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples