Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-333"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.20.3-333"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, find it regrettable that Commissioner Dimas is not here, but I would like to thank Commissioner Frattini for agreeing to be present for a debate that does not really fall within his competence.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, our rapporteur, Mrs Auken, most sincerely on the quality of her report and also, I would like to say, for her tenacity in defending our common objectives.
Tomorrow's vote, as I am sure we all appreciate, is crucial. Natura 2000 is the main tool for protecting biodiversity and endangered species in the EU. Despite the slow pace taken by certain Member States, the local administrations and players have set to work. Today, Natura 2000 covers more than 18 000 sites, 64 million hectares and nearly 15% of the landmass of Europe.
With regard to the issue of financing, yes, we must guarantee the viability of the financing, of the co-financing, of Natura 2000 by turning, as the Commission proposes, to existing sector financing instruments: the CAP Rural Development Fund and the Structural Funds. The integrated approach is certainly the most logical one in this regard, and we must now follow this logical path to its end and ensure that it is made compulsory to include Natura 2000 in the funds in question. This is also the main criticism being levelled at you, Commissioner, by the players on the ground and which is supported by no fewer than 15 Member States and the European Parliament: as Natura 2000 is by definition a concrete example of local governance, it is clear that, if local councillors and officials are not compelled to clearly promote the conservation of habitats and species in special areas, the money will be used for completely different things, for example road construction or the implementation of social or economic development projects. This is what is said in the important point 8 of our resolution, which our group strongly supports.
Finally, we are also in favour of point 5, which calls on the Commission to make a commitment to amend the new financial instrument LIFE + to include a specific item on 'nature conservation' and also to guarantee a minimum amount for Natura 2000 in the next financial perspectives, an amount which, as for other European policies, must match up to our ambitions. Those ambitions are clear: for all of us to endeavour to protect the environment.
Mr President, I have a point of order that relates to the French translation and is important for tomorrow's vote in plenary. If I am not mistaken, and I do not think I am, the French translation is incomplete. I am referring to point 5, which is a crucial point, as I have just said, since it relates to financing and to the level of that financing. I think that the English translation, which is the other text that I have here, must refer to this matter, because it is seven lines longer than the French translation and those seven lines make specific reference to what I have just mentioned, in particular the proposed minimum amount of EUR 21.35 billion. I therefore think that we will need to point out tomorrow that seven lines are missing at the end of the French text. We also need to be told which language version is authentic."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples