Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061023.20.1-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I agree with the rapporteur, Mrs Isler Béguin, that during the first reading Parliament significantly improved the Commission's proposal on LIFE+, particularly with respect to the amount to be included for the funding of Natura 2000. I therefore welcome Amendment 18, which restates the sum of EUR 100 million agreed during negotiations on the financial perspective.
There are, however, some reasons why I am not enthusiastic about Amendment 10, which, for the new Member States, deletes the very important second paragraph of Article 6 of the Council’s common position. I am afraid that centralised allocation of funding entirely through the projects favours old Member States that are more familiar with the procedures. It is common knowledge that institutions of the new Member States are not yet sufficiently prepared to compete with their projects on an equal footing. The Commission’s proposal that 80% of funding should be allocated to the Member States rectifies this objective initial disadvantage, and detailed eligibility criteria should ensure European added value of funding. Seen from this angle, I do not consider it renationalisation. With regard to the implementation, I would not object to the Council’s solution to the problem."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples