14 Amendments of Elisabeth JEGGLE related to 2009/2108(INI)
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the health check of species and habitat types protected under the Habitat Directive shows that a majority ofmany species and habitat types have an unfavourablinadequate conservation status, that the extinction rate is disturbingly high and that the drivers of biodiversity change show no evidence of declining; whereas habitats and species of EU interest are potentially threatened by climate change,
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recognises that a correct implementation of Natura 2000 legislation plays a major role in achieving the EU’s biodiversity objective; in this regard, considers it vital that future cooperation with land users in implementing NATURA 2000 be thoroughly reinforced and cooperative, voluntary nature conservation measures preferred to statutory conditions;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes, in principle, an inevitable certain degree of flexibility in EU environmental legislation in order to adapt implementation to local circumstances; observes, at the same time, some striking differences between Member States regarding, for example, the ‘external effect’ of Natura 2000 sites, block exemptions for certain ‘existing activities’ or the application of the precautionary principle;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Furthermore expresses its concern about the lack of cross-border cooperation, which can lead to identical areahabitat types and species being approached differently;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Is convinced that the Natura 2000 land and marine network is not the only EU instrument for biodiversity conservation, but; underlines that greater success can be achieved in contractual environmental protection if it is voluntary rather than statutory, and that a more integral approach is needed for the EU biodiversity policy to be successful;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Points out that agricultural and forestry-related activity in Europe has contributed substantially to a diversity of species and biotopes and a varied agricultural landscape now considered in need of protection; therefore underlines that in the long term it is only through agricultural and forestry-related activity that the agricultural landscape can be retained and biological diversity conserved in Europe;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Welcomes the previous attempts to integrate Finds that the early integration of agri-environmental considerations into the common agricultural policy (CAP), such as the introduction of agri- environment measures and good agriculture and environmental conditions, has proved worthwhile, and calls on the Commission to use the reform of the CAP as an opportunity to further enhance this trendanchor this trend in the second pillar, for example through the introduction of compensation for eco- services or the provision of public goods, including sustainable farmingland management in ecologically sensitive areas, such as Natura 2000 sites; underlines that the conditions for this must be created so that farms will also be able to contribute to biodiversity in the future;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the reform of the common fisheries policy currently being prepared and calls on the Commission to mainstream biodiversity criteria in its future legislative proposals; furthermore, insists that, as a possible alternative to fishing, sustainable marine aquaculture models should be developed along the lines proposed by the Commission in its Communication (COM(2009)162) and taking into account the European Parliament’s position (*);
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Deplores, however, the fact that no additional sources of funding for the implementation of the NATURA 2000 directives have been made available by the Commission, and that a clear breakdown of the actual amounts being spent per annum on biodiversity conservation in the EU is lacking and insists that Member States and the Commission cooperate to provide a clearer picture;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Is awarePoints out that additional funding for biodiversity conservation is available through other instruments, such as the Structural Funds and the Rural Development Fund, but deplores the limited use most Member States makRural Development Fund and the Structural Funds, with which considerable success has so far been achieved in terms of conserving biodiversity and facing up to climate change, particularly through the available agri-environmental measures; is convinced that most Member States will make greater use of this possibility in future;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Is convinced that public spending alone will not suffice to reach the EU headline target and underlines the importance of corporate social responsibility to also take into account biodiversity;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Furthermore, underlines the need to incorporate external coseffects, such as maintaining the agricultural landscape, the damage done to biodiversity or the costs incurred to support biodiversity, into the final price of products on the market;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Stresses the need to develop a clear baseline, on the basis of which the Commission is to set realistic and evidence-based (sub-)targets; considers it vital that increased monitoring of the situation and the development of species and biotopes must form the basis of future action to maintain biodiversity; also underlines the need for a critical analysis of current protective measures in the context of statutory protective area designations and regulatory nature conservation measures in the field of biodiversity; above all, considers it necessary to clarify the question of why the many efforts of the EU and the Member States over the past decades have not been successful;