17 Amendments of Sylvie GODDYN related to 2017/2819(RSP)
Amendment 14 #
Paragraph 2
2. However, notes with concern that the targets of the EU's 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the Convention on Biological Diversity will not be met without immediate, substantial and additional efforts and without rationalisation of the expenditure already undertaken;
Amendment 19 #
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the Action Plan aims to “accelerate progress toward the EU 2020 goal of halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services”; however considers it regrettable that no other links are made to the achievement of the 2020 Biodiversity Strategyor, to the conclusions of its mid-term review or to the disastrous impact of the Common Agricultural Policy;
Amendment 22 #
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates the need for additional, substantial and continuous efforts to achieve the 2020 targets, and calls on the Commission and Member States to give this a higher political priority by means of better management of funds for dealing with climate change and preserving biodiversity;
Amendment 24 #
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the limited timeframe of the Action Plan and calls on the Commission to commence work on the next Biodiversity Strategy without delafact that the word 'biodiversity' does not appear a single time in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or in the protocols and annexes to it, and considers that that fact may explain the difficulties encountered in taking practical and effective action to preserve biodiversity;
Amendment 25 #
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the limited timeframe of the Aat it is necessary to adopt an action Pplan and calls on the Commission to commence work on the next Biodiversity Strategy without delayto promote biodiversity, when that ought to be a prime objective of any action at European level which has an impact on the environment;
Amendment 31 #
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the four priority areas of the Action Plan and considers that the active involvement of all relevant actors, starting with States, in all the priority areas is needed;
Amendment 36 #
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises the role of civil society in ensuring bettersuggesting any form of implrovementation of the Union nature legislation, and the importance of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention in this regard;
Amendment 51 #
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets that the Action Plan fails to come forward with a priority strategy and concrete actions on pollinator protection, as requested by Parliament; calls once more on the Commission to come forward with an EU initiative on pollinators to comprehensively address this fundamental issue in a cross-cutting way; stresses that this problem is not unconnected to the Common Agricultural Policy and its current objectives;
Amendment 65 #
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights that the Fitness Check stresses the need to improve coherence with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and underlines the worrying decline in species and habitats associated with agriculture; calls on the Commission to carry out an evaluation of the impact of the CAP on biodiversity; deplores the fact that the prime objective of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is to increase agricultural productivity without any limit (Article 39 TFEU) and therefore that the CAP results in massive application of pesticides, often in chemical form, which is disastrous both for human beings and for pollinators such as bees, with the aim of constantly increasing production;
Amendment 72 #
Paragraph 14
14. Reiterates that one of the six key priorities for rural development in the EU, is the restoration, preservation and enhancement of ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry, including in Natura 2000 areas, which to some extent contradicts the prime objective of the CAP, namely to increase agricultural productivity without any limit;
Amendment 74 #
Paragraph 15
15. Reaffirms its call to the Commission and to the Member States to ensure that the funds under the CAP are redirectedfrom in their entirety from most frequently subsidising activities associated with biodiversity decline to financing environmentally sustainable agricultural practices and maintaining connected biodiversity;
Amendment 91 #
Paragraph 18
Amendment 92 #
Paragraph 18
18. Underlines that the main responsibility for funding of the Natura 2000 areas lies with the Member States and emphasises that a lack ofthe poor use of this funding is likely to have contributed the most to the gaps in the implementation of the Nature Directives, as stated in the Fitness Check;
Amendment 93 #
Paragraph 19
19. Underlines that the potential establishment of new financial mechanisms for biodiversity conservation to reach the 2020 targets is limited due to the timeframe of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF); calls for maximum use of existing means, including LIFE, the CAP - on condition that the aim is not to constantly increase productivity - and Structural Funds to be made;
Amendment 96 #
Paragraph 24
24. Reiterates that the Natura 2000 programme is customarily funded through co-financing; calls on the Member States to increase theirCommission to optimise the use of Natura 2000 funding, for a substantial and attractive co-financing rate to be set in order to increase uptake of the fund, and for measures to be taken to reduce administrative burdens on applicants and project beneficiaries;
Amendment 101 #
Paragraph 25
25. RIn the light of the threats presented by the trans-European transport networks to biodiversity, but also to people, recalls that Parliament called for a proposal for the development of a Trans- European Network for Green Infrastructure (TEN-G); welcomes the commitment made in the Action Plan to provide guidance to support the development of green infrastructure for better connectivity of Natura 2000 areas; reiterates, however, its call for a genuine proposal for the development of a TEN-G;
Amendment 104 #
Paragraph 26