Mr President, the regulation we are now to be discussing concerns the prior conditions for ensuring that, under the European Union's aid policy, better account is taken of the physical environment and of basic natural resources in conjunction with various development projects. This is an important issue because we know that economic growth can often have damaging consequences for the natural environment, either when natural resources are exploited, in the course of industrial production itself or when products are used. Environmental damage has harmful effects on public health. It is in danger of destroying biological diversity and may also entail damage which jeopardises the long-term productive capacity of natural systems. When and if that happens, the health of our economies is also affected. By thinking in preventive terms and by choosing methods and techniques which interfere with the environment as little as possible, growth can be combined with proper consideration for the environment. That is important in our own countries, but we still have a long way to go throughout the European Union. It is also important, of course, in the developing countries, especially in connection with the development cooperation initiated by the European Union. The requirements for integrating environmental considerations include extensive method development work and demonstration projects, as well as education and training, both of the Commission’s staff and of affected personnel in the recipient countries. The regulation we are discussing lays down detailed rules for this and makes a nice large sum of money available. This matter has been debated by Parliament twice before. At the last reading, there were significant differences between our own points of view and the proposal adopted by the Council. Conciliation was initiated, and we are now seeing the result of this. From Parliament’s point of view, I think we should greet the result of this conciliation with great satisfaction. We have achieved what we were aiming for in a number of important areas. Allow me to mention three important examples of these. First of all, the budget is near enough double the size of the original amount. We have gone from EUR 50 million to EUR 93 million. Secondly, the degree to which the Member States were to be involved in the implementation itself was a major issue. Parliament’s approach to this question was to opt for the least possible involvement, that is to say to make the Commission chiefly responsible for the implementation itself and to evaluate it subsequently. The compromise we have reached means that there is to be joint decision-making only in the case of activities involving more than EUR 2.5 million, when active participation on the part of the Member States is actually required. That is a good thing, in my view. If, as it ought to be, our aim is to simplify the provision of aid, remove the bureaucracy surrounding it and, in that way, close the gap between promises and commitments, on the one hand, and the activities carried out, on the other, it is essential that the Member States should interfere less in operational activity. With the conciliation we have achieved, we have taken a welcome step in that direction. Thirdly, we demanded at the second reading that the regulation should not be limited in time, that is to say that this type of activity should be planned on a very long-term basis. Now that the development process is to be evaluated after four years and decisions then taken about the future, I think, however, that we should be satisfied. Once the evaluation has taken place, we shall have every opportunity to establish guidelines, and more detailed guidelines than today’s, for this important activity. I therefore recommend that Parliament approve the result of the conciliation.

Political group: PPE-DE