Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-07-Speech-4-021"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-07-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE +)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050707.4.4-021"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-07-07-Speech-4-0222
lpv:speaker	lp:Genowefa Grabowska2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 quaestor; Parliament's Bureau (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Socjaldemokracja Polska (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ENVI (2004-09-29--2007-01-14)3 quaestor; European Parliament (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Quaestors (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the LIFE + Regulation is an outstanding piece of legislation. The fact that it is a regulation means that it will be binding upon all Member States, and have greater force than any directives addressed to them. The document has one flaw, however, which is that it only provides an indicative list of priorities, and leaves us in the dark as to how much funding these priorities will receive, if any. This is particularly true for Natura 2000, which is an issue that previous speakers have already touched upon. My message to the Commissioner is that it would be a mistake to force this programme to compete for support under the Structural Funds and the Fund for Rural Development. This would be an unworkable approach, because it would unleash a dirty war over whose needs were greatest; the needs of local communities, of the needs of protecting the environment and rare plant and animal species or those of the people living in the areas in question. Such a state of affairs would be intolerable. The second point I should like to make relates to the funding of Natura 2000. According to the Commission communication, the cost of such funding is expected to reach EUR 6.1 million. I am well aware that this is not a lot of money; in fact, it represents an absolute minimum. Yet EUR 5 million of this amount is to be earmarked for the 15 old EU Member States, and only EUR 1 million for the 10 new Member States. Is this an appropriate ratio? Does the Commissioner not believe that distributing funds in this way runs counter to the principle of European solidarity?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph