Awaiting committee decision
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2017/12/11
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Opinion | ENVI | BORZAN Biljana (S&D) | |
Lead | REGI | COZZOLINO Andrea (S&D) | BOGOVIČ Franc (EPP), PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr (ECR), JAKOVČIĆ Ivan (ALDE), PAPADIMOULIS Dimitrios (GUE/NGL), ŠKRLEC Davor (Verts/ALE), D'AMATO Rosa (EFD) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Activites
-
2017/12/11
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
- #3531
-
2017/04/25
Council Meeting
-
2017/03/16
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2016/12/16
Non-legislative basic document published
-
COM(2016)0805
summary
PURPOSE: to assess the state of progress of the implementation of the Union's macro-regional strategies. BACKGROUND: several EU countries and regions have introduced macro-regional strategies to complement their traditional national policies for territorial management. These strategies are designed to address common challenges, such as innovation-driven growth, environment or climate change. Reducing regional disparities is part of their objectives, as is the synergies they create for growth and employment in the regions concerned. The four macro-regional strategies developed so far concern: the Baltic Sea region (EUSBSR) (2009); the Danube Region (EUSDR) (2011); the Adriatic and Ionian Sea region (EUSAIR) (2014) the Alpine Region (EUSALP) (2016). These strategies, which involve 19 EU Member States and 8 third countries, are now an integral part of the Union's strategic framework. They reinforce the synergies between the various instruments and policies of the Union and add value to the cooperation dimension of cohesion policy. They can be supported through programmes under the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds), and in particular Interreg. Macro-regional strategies have become an important instrument in relations between the Member States and neighbouring countries, both with the accession countries and with those benefiting from the Neighbourhood Policy (Eastern Partnership), the northern periphery and of the Arctic region. CONTENT: this report assesses progress in the implementation of these strategies, takes stock of the main findings and presents recommendations on possible further developments in the light of future cohesion policy. The report concludes that although macroregional strategies have delivered their first results, they have not yet shown their full potential. Efforts are needed to ensure the effectiveness of governance systems and to focus on results, funding and the relationship with third countries. The Member States which have initiated the cooperation processes should also assume greater responsibilities. The main recommendations contained in the report are as follows: Better policy-making and planning: these strategies are gradually being taken into account in the EU’s strategic fields, for example, research, climate and the environment. However, they are integrated to differing degrees in national or regional programmes, especially in programmes financed by the ESI Funds. The strategies have strengthened cooperation in certain strategic areas, such as the Danube Navigability Master Plan or the extension of the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan. However, the report calls for better coordination within and between the countries involved in order to produce the expected results, stressing that collective steering and a common sense of purpose based on a long-term perspective should remain the basis for macro-regional cooperation. Improved governance: the strategies involve a governance structure at three levels: policy-making, coordination and operations. They emphasise the optimal use of existing financial sources (e.g. ESI Funds, Horizon 2020, COSME and LIFE), the better implementation of existing legislation and the better use of existing institutions. The success of the strategies depends on their satisfactory implementation in the coming years, as well as their ability to adapt to changing circumstances, for example, the migration crisis. More progress needs to be made in the governance of macro-regional strategies to improve their effectiveness. This supposes : the regular assessment of the effectiveness of the governance systems of each strategy to make the necessary adjustments; sectoral ministries make a stronger commitment to achieving the objectives of the macro-regional strategies, which implies a periodic rotation of the thematic area coordinators; close cooperation between the steering group members and the programme management authorities supported by the ESI Funds or other instruments; the strengthening of the links between macro-regional strategies with support from the EU’s INTERACT programme. Focussing on results: in the absence of clearly defined indicators and objectives, it is difficult to assess the extent to which the planned objectives have been met. The report calls for a robust monitoring system based on results-oriented action to enable each strategy to be measured, directed and summarised in order to guide decision-making. It is also necessary to: (i) improve the quality of projects and processes and ensure the sustainability of their results, as well as the link between project results and policy actions; (ii) increase awareness of the value-added and outcomes of strategies for critical review; (iii) further explore thematic platforms in order to strengthen strategies’ thematic focus. Better use of funding mechanisms: where strategies do not have a specific budget, there is a need for better coordinated use of the funding mechanisms available at different levels. The report recommends continuing the dialogue between ESI Fund programme authorities and those responsible for the implementation of macro-regional strategies in order to adapt funding in the most appropriate and cost-effective manner possible. In general, the Commission believes that macro-regional strategies call for the creation of closer links between the EU’s strategic areas and its funds.
-
COM(2016)0805
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2016)0805
Amendments | Dossier |
73 |
2017/2040(INI)
2017/07/06
ENVI
73 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Urges all macro regional strategies to assess the potential benefits of collective action in reduction of greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions, biodiversity and environmental protection and ecosystem based climate change adaptation strategies;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Considers the macro-regional strategies and associated environmental programmes a good instrument to make benefits of European cooperation visible to the citizens and therefore urges all involved parties to fully commit to the strategies and play their part in the implementation;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Calls for the timely adoption of maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management strategies by the EU Member States, as well as coastal candidate and potential candidate countries;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Points out that in rural areas nature is the economic base for many inhabitants and that environmental programmes can only be successful if supported by the local inhabitants; stresses, therefore, that in order to deliver on environment protection goals such projects must fully take into account the long-term economic interests of locals;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Urges all macro regional strategies to implement circular economy with the aim to achieve higher levels of environmental protection, health protection and non-toxic material cycles;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Calls for the enhancement of a marine NATURA 2000 network, and a coherent and representative network of Marine Protected Areas under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive by 2020;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Encourages all macro regional strategies to apply green public procurement in order to boost eco- innovation, development of new business models and use of secondary raw material;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Stresses the importance of stakeholder dialogue and public communication of the macro-regional strategies to make them known and gain acceptance in the local communities; considers this a key element to lead the macro-regional strategies to success;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the need
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Highlights the need to mobilise funds for particular environmental goals of the macro-regions, complementing the existing funding;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that macro regional strategies are being consistently integrated into policy planning at EU level, but more sporadically at national and regional level;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the importance of developing monitoring and evaluation tools for various indicators in order to better measure the achievement of environmental targets without creating unnecessary administrative burden for project partners and stakeholder;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the stakeholders of the macro-regions to use European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and other Union funding to promote environment-related investments that have climate change mitigation among their objectives;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Calls for specific synchronisation and better coordinated use of existing funds at all levels to pursue macro- regional objectives in order optimally to unlock the potential of macro-regional strategies and ultimately fulfil the general expectations to the maximum;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Calls on stakeholders in the macro-regions, in addition to the funds relevant to macro-regional strategies and the instruments for the financing of particular environmental objectives, also to consider using the European Fund for Strategic Investments;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Points out that the sea of the Adriatic and Ionian region is threatened by various sources of pollution, including untreated waste, marine litter, untreated effluent and eutrophication from agricultural runoff and fish farms; calls therefore on the participating countries to further step up their efforts in tackling these environmental challenges, stresses the importance of introducing for this purpose a proper system for the treatment of waste and effluent and the protection of water supplies;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Points out that the sea of the Adriatic and Ionian region is threatened by various sources of pollution, including untreated waste, marine litter and eutrophication from agricultural runoff and fish farms; points out that many bays and inlets up along the west coast of Ireland are likewise suffering from fish farm pollution; calls therefore on the participating countries to further step up their efforts in tackling these environmental challenges;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Points out that the Adriatic Sea, due to its semi-enclosed nature, is especially vulnerable to pollution and has unusual hydrographic features; its depth and the length of its coastline vary considerably between the north and south of the region;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes that completion of road and transport infrastructures and measures to realise the immense untapped potential of renewable energy sources are essential conditions for achievement of environmental sustainability goals in the macro-region
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Points to the need to ensure environmental sustainability in the Adriatic and Ionian macro-region by means of specific environmental protection measures, including projects for the launching of surveys and the prevention of subsidence;
Amendment 3 #
1a. Welcomes the potential for macro- regional strategies to foster coordinated action, deepen dialogue between different actors and to improve effectiveness of Union financial instruments in the areas of environmental and biodiversity protection, climate mitigation and adaptation;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Welcomes the fact that all four pillars of the Adriatic and Ionian region – Blue Growth, Connecting the Region, Environmental Quality and Sustainable Tourism – are designed to contribute to sustainability goals;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. recalls the previous position of the EP on the INI report on "The evolution of EU macro-regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean”; points out that the Mediterranean is a coherent whole, constituting a single cultural and environmental area, and sharing very many characteristics and priorities common to the 'Mediterranean climate’: the same crops, abundant renewable energy sources, particularly solar energy, the importance of tourism, the same natural disaster risks (fires, floods, earthquakes, water shortages) and the risks from human activity, particularly maritime pollution; reaffirms once again its support to the implementation of a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean basin, so as to offer an action plan for addressing the common and problematic challenges facing the Mediterranean countries and regions and to give structure to this key area for Europe's development and integration, and calls on the Council and the Commission to act quickly on this matter;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that third countries involved in projects in the macro-region comply with the relevant Union acquis, in order to guarantee the sustainable exploitation of the Union's resources; in particular the Marine Strategy Framework, the Water Framework, Urban Waste Water, Nitrates, Waste, Birds and Habitats Directives as well the Green Infrastructure Strategy; recommends that agreements and conventions be used to involve countries outside the EU in European Union environmental projects;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Considers the Sustainable Tourism pillar of the Adriatic and Ionian region as a positive instrument to create sustainable economic growth in the region as well as to raise awareness for environmental challenges and the macro-regional strategies;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Points out that the rich biodiversity of the Adriatic-Ionian (Region), marine sub-region is a major draw for tourism, recreational and fishing activities, and contributes to the cultural heritage of the macro-region; therefore, considers the lack of habitat maps unfortunate; calls on the participant countries to undertake mapping actions within the framework of the EUSAIR;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Emphasises that an ecosystem- based approach to the coordination of activities is needed within the framework of Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), in order to ensure the sustainable use of resources, as both frameworks are important stimulants for trans-boundary collaboration and stakeholder cooperation across different coastal and maritime sector activities, and have the potential to bring together ecosystem services and Blue Growth opportunities in a sustainable way;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 e (new) 5e. Calls for the establishment of a coordinated monitoring system and database on marine litter and marine pollution, including the identification of sources and types of litter and pollution, as well as a geographic information system (GIS) database on the location and sources of marine litter;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 f (new) 5f. Calls for the drafting and implementation of a joint contingency plan for oil spills and other large-scale pollution events, building on the work of the sub-regional contingency plan developed by the Joint Commission for the protection of the Adriatic Sea and coastal areas, and the Barcelona Convention protocols;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 g (new) 5g. Calls on the countries involved to give priority to capacity-building directed at the EUSAIR key implementers, as well as at programme authorities responsible for EUSAIR relevant operational programmes;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Notes with appreciation the implementation of projects such as DANUBEPARKS 2.0, STURGEON 2020, SEERISK, CC-WARE and the Danube Air Nexus cluster in reaching the EUSDR environmental goals;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recognises the importance of macro-regional strategies in providing a single integrated framework to address common challenges faced by a defined geographical area encompassing Member States and third countries, which benefit in this way from strengthened cooperation contributing to achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Welcomes the Danube region project "EuroAccess" as a tool to make available funding more accessible and encourages other macro-regional regions to consider this as a best practice;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to commence the development of an Iberian Peninsula macro-region meeting the challenges of conducting a properly planned forestry policy in line with climatic requirements, in a bid to remedy rural depopulation, desertification and soil erosion through the proper ecological management and diversification of forests, planting native deciduous trees that are more fire-resistant, thereby helping to reverse the massive fire damage sustained by forests every year in Portugal and Spain.
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Welcomes the setting up of the Interreg Danube Transnational Programme as a tool for providing support to its governance, and highlights its direct contribution to the Strategy's implementation as being one of the most visible results of the EUSDR;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Stresses that a more integrated approach to mobility and multimodality in the Danube region would also be beneficial to the environment;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Stresses that the European Commission should rapidly initiate studies for the development of an Iberian macro-region in view of the major cross- border challenges arising in connection with climate change, environmental protection, risk prevention and management, the efficient use of resources, nature conservation, biodiversity, shared water resources and exploration of the potential of the blue economy and of renewables;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6c. Welcomes the setting up of the Danube Strategy Point as a new body for facilitating the implementation of the EUSDR, and encourages the involvement of all concerned parties and potentially interested actors;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 d (new) 6d. Notes with concern that, compared to the first years of its activity, the EUSDR now seems to have been given a lower priority slot in the political narrative at national level in those countries involved; emphasises the need to maintain the political momentum since the commitment by countries directly affects the availability of human resources in the national and regional administrations, and this is crucial for the smooth functioning of the strategy, and for working towards a consolidation of the progress made and results achieved so far;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 e (new) 6e. Calls on the participant countries to ensure an adequate participation of national representatives in EUSDR Steering Group meetings on priority areas, and to consider reducing the number and scope of current priority areas if sufficient resources are not allocated within well-defined timeframes;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 f (new) 6f. Highlight the issue of numerous sunken ships in the Danube that present a navigational and ecological danger, especially where water levels are low; points out that sunken wrecks contain appreciable amounts of fuel and other substances that pollute water constantly, while the rusting metal of the ships generates pollution on a continuous basis with serious repercussions; calls for the mobilisation of EU funds for tackling this problem and greater co-operation in the framework of the EUSDR;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Calls on the Commission and participating countries and their regions to further integrate macro-regional strategies into EU sectorial policies, and to develop synergies between them, thereby facilitating the implementation of sectorial policies in an integrated way across territories;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the stakeholders of the Alpine macro-region to use European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and other Union funding to promote environment-related investments that have climate change mitigation and adaptation among their objectives;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the stakeholders of the Alpine macro-region to use European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and other Union funding to promote environment-related investments that have climate change mitigation among their objectives; particularly welcomes the region's integrated approach to align the preservation of the environment and ecosystems with the pursuit of economic and social prosperity;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Underlines that environmental policy is of a cross-cutting nature and that the favoured options in Alpine strategy fields must reconcile environmental sustainability and economic development; whereas climate change mitigation and biodiversity preservation policies include the need to reinforce the resilience of ecosystems with enough habitat connectivity to allow species migration;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Points out that the Alpine region is an important regional transport hub and that consequently the coordinated development of transport infrastructure, also with regard to ensuring healthy and balanced ecosystems, is of utmost importance;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that the Alpine macro- region is one of the largest natural and recreation areas and one of the most attractive tourism regions in Europe, but, because of the particular geographical and natural conditions, access to it is a challenge; considers that, in order to preserve the Alps as a unique natural area, it is vital to create sustainable and interrelated transport strategies which can be jointly coordinated and developed in the context of the macro-regions;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Is concerned that climate change can give rise to hydrogeological instability and threaten biodiversity in the Alpine Region; underlines that rising temperatures are a serious threat to the survival of species' populations living at high altitudes, and that the melting of glaciers is a further cause for concern, as it has a major impact on groundwater reserves;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Stresses that the Alpine region's tourism and agricultural sector are key stakeholder for the regional sustainable development and therefore should be integrated at all stages of the implementation of environmental projects;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Considers it essential to pursue climate change policies encompassing production and consumption patterns that are in line with the circular economy principles and shorter cycles in the food supply chain, and to place the emphasis on the rational use and reuse of local materials and natural resources, including wastewater and agricultural waste, and on the sharing of services encouraged by green public procurement, and fostering close links between producers and consumers at local level;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 d (new) 7d. Notes that the first steps in the implementation of the EUSALP strategy have shown that its integration into the existing programmes has proven difficult, as they are governed by structures, frameworks and timeframes which are often incompatible with the needs of a macro-regional strategy;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 e (new) 7e. Calls on the participant countries to reinforce their commitment, continuity, stability, empowerment and support to the EUSALP Action Group members who will represent them, and to make sure that all Action Groups are adequately represented;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Recognises the importance of the four existing EU macro-regional strategies, namely the 2009 EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR), the 2011 EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) the 2014 EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) and the 2015 EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP);
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Points out that the environmental state of the Baltic Sea has remained the main focus of the EUSBSR since its launch in 2009;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Recalls that the Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted seas in the world; stresses the importance of cooperation to improve the state of the Baltic Sea; calls for neighbourhood programmes to continue throughout the Baltic Sea catchment area and to include in them funding by means of which the state of the environment can be improved throughout the catchment area;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Notes that achieving a good environmental status by 2020 is one of the key objectives of policy actions in the Baltic Sea Region;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Considers it deplorable from the point of view of the marine macro-regions that ships can discharge untreated effluent into the sea if they are more than 12 nautical miles (approximately 22 km) from the coast and that treated effluent can even be discharged into the water three nautical miles (approximately 5.5 km) from the coast; calls for funding to be provided to increase the reception capacity for effluent at ports so that all passenger vessels can treat their effluent as required by the revised Annex IV to the MARPOL Convention;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 c (new) 8c. Calls on all stakeholders to organise more frequent and regular political discussions on the EUSBSR at national level within the Parliament or Government, and also within the Council at the relevant Ministerial meetings;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 c (new) 8c. Welcomes, from the point of view of the Baltic macro-region, the Sulphur Directive adopted by the EU and the decision by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) of 27 October 2016 to designate the Baltic Sea and the North Sea an NOxEmission Control Area (NECA);recalls that the unclean fuels used by vessels are still resulting in the emission of large quantities of nitrogen and sulphur into the air, from where it falls out into the sea;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 d (new) 8d. Notes that the EUSBSR is a stable cooperation framework with more than 100 flagship initiatives and new networks; nevertheless, urges stakeholders to maintain its momentum and to improve policy coordination and content by building on project results;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 d (new) 8d. Considers it important to review the permission for users of open-loop sulphur scrubbers to discharge sulphur- scrubbing water back into the sea; observes that effluent from closed-loop sulphur scrubbers has to be delivered for treatment, but that effluent from open- loop scrubbers is discharged directly back into the sea, creating a greenwash operational model, in which sulphur is removed from the air but ends up in the sea;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Considers that the four strategies could be still more effectively administered in the context of sustainable development, climate change, renewables and blue economy;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 e (new) Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 f (new) 8f. Recalls that Blue Growth in marine macro-regions is based on sustainable use of the potential of the seas, which means that the environmental aspect must be taken into account in all activities; recalls that, within the framework of the Blue Bioeconomy, it is possible to find new products and services and to develop and cultivate know-how based on them in order to promote employment; stresses that sustainable use of natural resources and favourable status of aquatic and marine environments create a strong foundation for the Blue Bioeconomy;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 g (new) 8g. Stresses the significant shift towards the bioeconomy and the circular economy in economic thinking, modes of action and methods, which can help to tackle the environmental challenges in the Baltic; recalls the opportunities for exploiting renewable energy and improving energy efficiency in the Baltic region;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 h (new) 8h. Attaches importance to the possibility of connecting the Baltic region to energy networks in order to reduce and eliminate energy poverty and to increase energy security and security of supply;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Encourages the expansion of conservation areas to protect the environment and halt biodiversity loss, particularly through the enhancement of the Natura 2000 and Emerald networks, as well as the LIFE programme;
source: 607.956
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
other/0 |
|
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/4 |
|
committees/1/shadows/4 |
|
activities/2 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
activities/1/committees/1/date |
2017-02-06T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/1/shadows |
|
committees/1/date |
2017-02-06T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
committees/1/shadows |
|
activities/1 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
REGI/8/09434
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|