Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.20.1-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must begin by thanking the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and, in particular, my fellow shadow rapporteurs for the work that we have done together, because I believe that it can be said - even though, as is customary at this hour, the Chamber is not very full - that we have genuinely carried out a joint piece of work and that this report, which bears my name, could just as well bear the name of my fellow Members, Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines, Mrs Ries or even Mrs Lienemann, who apologises for not being able to take part in this evening’s debate.
Our ambition is for the Union to remain the flagship, the global leader that takes the initiative for establishing laws to protect the planet. That requires the Commission to be able to produce ambitious policies, to assume responsibility and control of the quality of the projects launched at Member State level and to reject any that are unsuitable. European policy must under no circumstances compensate for the Member States’ failings in relation to the environment, and, as you will understand, we are refusing to give them a blank cheque.
On the other hand, we are perfectly aware that the delay that this procedure could cause is also liable to cause delays in terms of funding. That is why, together, we have tabled the same amendment, so as to ensure that the work done by your Environment DG continues to be funded, pending an agreement, of course. Above all, we also want it to be possible for this work to continue and even for you to launch new projects and oversee the funding of the work done by NGOs. We should like to make it clear in this House that, legally and financially, that is possible.
To conclude, Mr President, I would say that the ball is now in the court of the Council and of the Commission and that we are convinced that we are going to reach an agreement amongst ourselves precisely so as to ensure that this ambitious environmental policy is taken forward. That is what our fellow citizens expect, and they encourage you in that regard.
We have also produced a joint piece of work with the Commission. Unfortunately, it is regrettable that the Council is not present, because, ultimately, our results will depend greatly on it. I am entirely convinced that the cooperation that we have been able to put in place during this first reading and that follows on from the common position will enable us to reach a consensus with the Council and with yourself, and I am counting on you, Commissioner, to pass the results of this debate on to the Council.
Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, LIFE+ is no longer the programme that we once knew, but will indeed constitute the Union’s ‘environment’ budget heading. Thus, it is LIFE+ that will govern Europe’s innovative policies, that will rise to the challenges, such as the fight against climate change and the efforts to rid the air and soil of pollution, that will prevent biodiversity damage and that will provide the Environment DG and the NGOs, our bio-indicators
with the means to endow the Member States’ environmental policies with European added value.
In fact, as you will know, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking here about an ‘impossible budget heading’, given the derisory sum that the Council and the Commission have granted it. We made an attempt, at first reading, to increase this LIFE heading, which, I must point out, does not even represent 1% of the overall budget, with the aim of bringing it into line with the policies much-publicised by the Union itself. The debate focused back then on support for the Natura 2000 network, our flagship environmental policy. By adding EUR 21 billion, which even the Commission felt was necessary if Natura 2000 was to be managed properly, the European Parliament sent out a strong signal to the Commission and to the Council. We were right to do so.
Today, with the reduction in the Structural Funds budgets, a form of unbridled competition has begun in the regions, and all of our colleagues are having a change of heart. As Natura 2000 does not specifically feature in the financial regulations, well, it will undoubtedly be environmental volunteers who produce the results. We should not get our hopes up too much, however, regarding the share that will be reserved for the protection of nature and biodiversity, despite the fact that, at the European Parliament’s first reading, we were virtually unanimous in our support of an ambitious European policy.
The common position proposed to us has spectacularly ignored our warning. Worse still, it is deviating from it in an alarming way, going so far as to grant 80% of the delegated management responsibility to the Member States, even though you did not mention this percentage in your initial proposal. What minister would refuse such a gift? Admittedly, we also realise that, with too few staff members, the Commission is afraid of managing multiple projects. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that, with a reduction in the number of European officials having been announced, there remains little hope of the Environment DG strengthening its staff.
Let us make it very clear to you: this approach is not the right one because the European level remains the most relevant and most secure one for dealing with environmental issues. We even feel that this handover of power from the Commission to the Member States is dangerous. In our view, this initial strategy to renationalise the environmental policies is the sign of a slow disintegration of the European idea. Each Member State demanding its initial bet would thus be free to dip into the Lisbon Strategy, and thus to become an unrivalled competitor – and we know full well that competition generally goes hand in hand with environmental damage – or to claim that sustainable development, which requires a global approach, is the opposite of such competition. We also know the extent to which the label ‘environment' serves to justify problems that destroy the environment.
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is the trap that we refuse to fall into because to do so would be to negate all of the successes that Europe has had in relation to the environment. If there is one policy that can be seen, identified, recognised and appreciated by Europeans, it is indeed the one that we have succeeded in implementing on environmental protection.
We all know that LIFE must enable us to deal with emergencies and to implement policies aimed at restoring our environment. The EUR 100 million that were extracted at the time of the financial perspective and that we are demanding, Commissioner, be allocated entirely to the environment will not be enough to achieve these aims. Commissioner, unless you are a magician, it will be impossible for you to keep your promises with such derisory sums. Entrusting them to the Member States therefore means running the risk of failure."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples