Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.20.1-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would tend to support the 80% management of LIFE by Member States. This would ensure a much better and fairer spread of funds across the EU and across the many different types of environment within the EU. It would bring more local knowledge to the project selection process and make public awareness easier to achieve.
I have only one hesitation as an Irish MEP: I believe that the second half of the second pillar of LIFE – implementation of existing environmental policy – is critical. This is a priority, because there is no point in funding new policies and projects when we have not learned to implement the standards we have already imposed on ourselves. Frankly, this is a problem in my home country, when it comes to industry. My Member State’s Environmental Protection Agency seems to be very reluctant to force the same compliance on industry as it does on the public.
In my willingness to support management of LIFE+ at Member-State level, I would still like to see a reasonable level of scrutiny to ensure that the projects selected prioritise efforts to improve compliance by industry with EU environmental law."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples