natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
M. vzhledem k tomu, že Evropská komise ve svém sdělení analyzuje tři rozdílné způsoby možného budoucího financování soustavy Natura 2000,
M. whereas the European Commission analyses three different scenarios for the future financing of the Natura 2000 network in its communication
N. připomíná, že Komise a Rada se schválením směrnice o ochraně přírodních stanovišť v roce 1992 jednoznačně zavázaly zajistit, že vlastníci půdy a její uživatelé neponesou náklady vzniklé v důsledku opatření této směrnice; jednoznačně trvá na dodržení tohoto slibu;
N. Recalls that the Commission and the Council, in adopting the Habitats Directive in 1992, made a clear commitment to ensure that landowners and landusers would not bear the financial burden of the measures in the directive; strongly urges that this promise be kept;
3. vítá iniciativu Komise navrhnout strategický přístup ke spolufinancování programu Natura 2000 a prohlášení komisaře Dimase učiněné na mezinárodní konferenci „Biologická rozmanitost, věda a řízení“ dne 24. ledna 2005 v Paříži;
Welcomes the initiative of the Commission to propose a strategic approach to co-finance Natura 2000 and the statement made by Commissioner Dimas at the International Conference on "Biodiversity, Science and Governance" on 24 January 2005 in Paris;
6. trvá na tom, že dotování fondu je nezbytné odpovídajícím způsobem navýšit, budou-li výdaje na síť Natura 2000 zahrnuty do fondu rozvoje venkova;
Insists that if Natura 2000 expenditure is to be included in the Rural Development Fund, the endowment of the fund needs to be increased accordingly;
8. uznává, že zatímco integrovaný přístup je efektivní, pokud se uskutečňuje masivně, minulé zkušenosti ukázaly jeho omezené možnosti úspěchu; domnívá se, že navrhovaná nařízení o fondu rozvoje venkova a strukturálních fondech neodpovídají příslušným ustanovením Natura 2000 a nesplňují ambice uvedené ve sdělení a ohrožují cíl EU v oblasti biologické rozmanitosti do roku 2010, mimo jiné proto, že:
Recognises that, while the integration approach might be effective if it is implemented in a robust manner, past experience shows success has been limited; considers that the proposed rural development and structural fund regulations fail to reflect adequate Natura 2000 provisions, failing to deliver upon the Communication’s ambition and putting the EU 2010 biodiversity target at risk, inter alia due to the following:
- specifická kritéria zeměpisných oblastí způsobilých pro podporu ze strukturálních fondů by vyloučila některé z nejohroženějších ekosystémů a biologických druhů;
- the specific criteria for geographic areas eligible for structural fund support would exclude some of the most endangered habitat types and species;
- zachování biologické rozmanitosti nebylo dosud hlavním cílem rozvoje venkova a strukturálních fondů a z místního a regionálního hlediska by mohlo být i v rozporu s jinými cíli sociálně-ekonomického rozvoje;
- biodiversity conservation has, until now, not been a major objective of rural development and structural funds, and may in a local and regional context even conflict with other socio-economic development objectives;
- spolufinancování chráněných oblastí Natura 2000 by přímo konkurovalo jiným sociálním a hospodářským projektům, např. transevropským sítím nebo strukturálním změnám v zemědělství;
- co-financing of Natura 2000 sites would compete directly with other economic and social projects, such as the Trans-European Networks or structural adjustment in farming;
- programování a správa fondu rozvoje venkova a strukturálních fondů jsou nasměrovány na posílení regionálního sociálně-ekonomického rozvoje a orgány odpovědné za jejich správu mají nyní stále omezené pravomoci v oblasti ochrany přírody a nemají dostatek odborných znalostí a dovedností potřebných k řízení projektů, jejichž cílem je zachování přírody;
- the programming and management of rural development and structural funds is geared towards fostering regional socio-economic development, and the administrations responsible for managing them have, at the moment, still limited nature conservation competencies, lacking the expertise and skills required to manage projects with nature conservation objectives;
- neexistují záruky, které by např. podmiňovaly strukturální financování odpovídajícími národními plány na financování Natura 2000, jak se uvádí ve sdělení o finančním výhledu;
- no guarantees such as making the release of structural funding conditional upon adequate national Natura 2000 financing plans are foreseen although stipulated in the Communication on the Financial Perspectives;
- návrhy týkající se strukturálních fondů, rozvoje venkova a LIFE+ ve stávající podobě nezaručují minimální financování sítě Natura 2000 ani dodatečné financování odpovídajících nástrojů;
- structural, rural or LIFE+ proposals in their present form do not guarantee minimum funding for Natura 2000 nor additional funding to those instruments reflecting this priority;
- nepočítají s finanční podporou chráněných mořských oblastí Natura 2000;
- no financial support is foreseen for marine Natura 2000 sites;
12. žádá změny návrhu nařízení Rady, kterým se stanoví obecná ustanovení pro Evropský regionální rozvojový fond, Evropský sociální fond a Fond soudržnosti vztahující se k programu Natura 2000 s cílem zajistit nárok na financování činností v rámci programu Natura 2000 ze strukturálních fondů.
Calls for changes to the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund to refer to Natura 2000 in order to ensure the eligibility of Natura 2000 activities for financing from the structural funds;
16. podporuje záměr Komise zveřejnit podrobný návod, jak využívat strukturální fondy na podporu sítě programu Natura 2000, a vyzývá Komisi, aby splnila své sliby, že financování programu Natura 2000 bude v připravovaných strategických směrech Společenství pro politiku soudržnosti zařazeno mezi priority;
Supports the Commission's intention to publish detailed guidance on how to use the structural funds to support the Natura 2000 network and calls on the Commission to make good its assurances that Natura 2000 financing will be listed as a priority in the forthcoming Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion Policy;
18. zdůrazňuje význam zapojení národních parlamentů, sociálních partnerů, občanské společnosti a regionálních a místních orgánů do plnění těchto cílů, podporou rozšiřování náležitého dialogu s veřejností.
Stresses the importance of involving the national parliaments, the social partners, civil society and regional and local authorities in implementing these objectives, by encouraging promoting proper public consultation;
At the June 2001 Gothenburg Summit, Heads of State committed to the target of halting biodiversity loss in the EU by 2010.
At the June 2001 Gothenburg Summit, Heads of State committed to the target of halting biodiversity loss in the EU by 2010.
This commitment was reaffirmed at the June Summit in 2004 and forms part of EU’s commitment to stem losses of global biodiversity.
This commitment was reaffirmed at the June Summit in 2004 and forms part of EU’s commitment to stem losses of global biodiversity.
Wild birds have been adopted as an EU structural indicator of EU biodiversity.
Wild birds have been adopted as an EU structural indicator of EU biodiversity.
Farmland bird populations are currently endangered, reinforcing evidence that other groups of flora and fauna are in similar deep decline.
Farmland bird populations are currently endangered, reinforcing evidence that other groups of flora and fauna are in similar deep decline.
Significant progress has been made in the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas through the designation of more than 18,000 sites across the EU.
Significant progress has been made in the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas through the designation of more than 18,000 sites across the EU.
When finalised, the network is expected to cover more than 15 % of the EU's territory with a significant marine component (currently 7.7 million hectares).
When finalised, the network is expected to cover more than 15 % of the EU's territory with a significant marine component (currently 7.7 million hectares).
Delivering a well designed and adequately financed Natura 2000 network is a key opportunity to help deliver the 2010 target.
Delivering a well designed and adequately financed Natura 2000 network is a key opportunity to help deliver the 2010 target.
Without adequate financial security, this target will be put at risk.
Without adequate financial security, this target will be put at risk.
Socio-economic benefits
Socio-economic benefits
In addition to biodiversity benefits, a well-managed Natura 2000 network should play an important role in the solution to two current public policy challenges: rural economic decline and improvement in citizens’ quality of life.
In addition to biodiversity benefits, a well-managed Natura 2000 network should play an important role in the solution to two current public policy challenges: rural economic decline and improvement in citizens’ quality of life.
Properly managed Natura 2000 sites are mostly multi-functional in nature, helping to promote diversity in often economically remote areas through direct and indirect spending.
Properly managed Natura 2000 sites are mostly multi-functional in nature, helping to promote diversity in often economically remote areas through direct and indirect spending.
It is estimated that 125,000 jobs are supported in the EU-15 in nature protection related activities.
It is estimated that 125,000 jobs are supported in the EU-15 in nature protection related activities.
Nature conservation is a growth sector, unlike agriculture and forestry.
Nature conservation is a growth sector, unlike agriculture and forestry.
Certain ‘honey pot’ sites also show significant potential for the tourism industry, adding to rural economic diversification potential.
Certain ‘honey pot’ sites also show significant potential for the tourism industry, adding to rural economic diversification potential.
Public benefits include high value ecological life support systems such as water purification and flood prevention.
Public benefits include high value ecological life support systems such as water purification and flood prevention.
Evidence suggests that conservation efforts will help to preserve billions of Euros of such assets.
Evidence suggests that conservation efforts will help to preserve billions of Euros of such assets.
Natura 2000 sites also offer an extensive educational resource.
Natura 2000 sites also offer an extensive educational resource.
Promotion and investment in these sites is desirable to maximise this potential.
Promotion and investment in these sites is desirable to maximise this potential.
Physical inactivity is a major preventable health risk leading to increasing health problems and burdens on health structures.
Physical inactivity is a major preventable health risk leading to increasing health problems and burdens on health structures.
Accessible protected areas with appropriate facilities provide a public facility that can play a role in reducing public health burdens through encouragement of physical activity.
Accessible protected areas with appropriate facilities provide a public facility that can play a role in reducing public health burdens through encouragement of physical activity.
The Commission's Communication estimates that the Natura 2000 Network will cost € 6.1 billion annually.
The Commission's Communication estimates that the Natura 2000 Network will cost € 6.1 billion annually.
Preliminary calculations by NGOs suggest that this is likely to be a significant underestimate.
Preliminary calculations by NGOs suggest that this is likely to be a significant underestimate.
According to your 'rapporteur', the Commission’s € 6.1 billion estimate should be considered as an absolute minimum 'advisory cost'.
According to your 'rapporteur', the Commission’s € 6.1 billion estimate should be considered as an absolute minimum 'advisory cost'.
Strategy – or ‘Policy response’?
Strategy – or ‘Policy response’?
The principal strategy proposed by the Commission is to mainstream Natura 2000 financing into the EU spatial management policies: the Rural Development and Cohesion policies.
The principal strategy proposed by the Commission is to mainstream Natura 2000 financing into the EU spatial management policies: the Rural Development and Cohesion policies.
In order to be successful, this political choice must be adequately reflected in the Rural Development, Structural and Cohesion fund regulations.
In order to be successful, this political choice must be adequately reflected in the Rural Development, Structural and Cohesion fund regulations.
This represents a key test for the EU’s commitment to the principal of environmental integration under the Cardiff Process and the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy.
This represents a key test for the EU’s commitment to the principal of environmental integration under the Cardiff Process and the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy.
The Expert Group Report (Working Group on Article 8 of the Habitats Directive) proposed three options for co-financing: 1) use of existing EU funds; 2) increasing and upgrading the LIFE-Nature fund; 3) creation of a new funding instrument dedicated to Natura 2000.
The Expert Group Report (Working Group on Article 8 of the Habitats Directive) proposed three options for co-financing: 1) use of existing EU funds; 2) increasing and upgrading the LIFE-Nature fund; 3) creation of a new funding instrument dedicated to Natura 2000.
The Commission’s approach is to pursue Option 1) and integrate financing into Rural Development and Structural Funds.
The Commission’s approach is to pursue Option 1) and integrate financing into Rural Development and Structural Funds.
Such mainstreaming should be welcomed, but it must be noted that currently this strategy has some conspicuous limitations and obstacles.
Such mainstreaming should be welcomed, but it must be noted that currently this strategy has some conspicuous limitations and obstacles.
· Management of many endangered habitat types, such as wetlands, and species such as the Imperial Eagle, would not be covered by the scope of Rural Development or Cohesion Policy.
· Management of many endangered habitat types, such as wetlands, and species such as the Imperial Eagle, would not be covered by the scope of Rural Development or Cohesion Policy.
· Biodiversity is still not the main objective of Rural and Structural Funds.
· Biodiversity is still not the main objective of Rural and Structural Funds.
These funds are at present driven by other, largely socio-economic priorities.
These funds are at present driven by other, largely socio-economic priorities.
Even with the recent changes in the CAP agreed with the 2003 Reform, the principle of environmental integration, the main objective of the Rural Development and Structural Funds is not nature conservation.
Even with the recent changes in the CAP agreed with the 2003 Reform, the principle of environmental integration, the main objective of the Rural Development and Structural Funds is not nature conservation.
Financing of Natura 2000 sites will compete directly with other, high-priority economic and social projects, such as the Trans-European Networks or structural adjustment in farming.
Financing of Natura 2000 sites will compete directly with other, high-priority economic and social projects, such as the Trans-European Networks or structural adjustment in farming.
· Administrations responsible for managing and disbursing Rural and Structural Funds, often have limited nature conservation expertise and skills.
· Administrations responsible for managing and disbursing Rural and Structural Funds, often have limited nature conservation expertise and skills.
It is therefore important that a dedicated fund, managed by institutions responsible for nature conservation, continues to play a significant role in Natura 2000 financing.
It is therefore important that a dedicated fund, managed by institutions responsible for nature conservation, continues to play a significant role in Natura 2000 financing.
· It is a reality in most Member States that limited government funding is available for activities linked to the Natura 2000 network.
· It is a reality in most Member States that limited government funding is available for activities linked to the Natura 2000 network.
Criticisms have been voiced by stakeholders that the present system is unfocused, leading to fears that an integrated approach will be complex and difficult to implement correctly in order to deliver targeted on-the-ground biodiversity gains.
Criticisms have been voiced by stakeholders that the present system is unfocused, leading to fears that an integrated approach will be complex and difficult to implement correctly in order to deliver targeted on-the-ground biodiversity gains.
The Working Group on Article 8 of the Habitats Directive thus concludes: "It is evident that the existing range of EU co-financing arrangements in unsuited to the challenge of implementing Natura 2000.
The Working Group on Article 8 of the Habitats Directive thus concludes: "It is evident that the existing range of EU co-financing arrangements in unsuited to the challenge of implementing Natura 2000.
Arrangements are complex, potentially involving a large number of funds, each with separate criteria and application processes and designed to deliver against its own objectives, rather than those of Natura 2000.
Arrangements are complex, potentially involving a large number of funds, each with separate criteria and application processes and designed to deliver against its own objectives, rather than those of Natura 2000.
None of the funds is available on a long-term basis for the full range of activities associated with Natura 2000 management."
None of the funds is available on a long-term basis for the full range of activities associated with Natura 2000 management."
The European Environment Agency (EEA) views nature protection in a much broader perspective than the Commission’s approach.
The European Environment Agency (EEA) views nature protection in a much broader perspective than the Commission’s approach.
The EEA writes: "Achieving these targets will require monitoring, information, assessments and understanding of: the causal relationships between human activities, the pressures they produce and the impacts of these pressures on the environment in general and biodiversity in particular; the options for actions to reduce and prevent biodiversity loss; and the effects and effectiveness of agreed actions on biodiversity."
The EEA writes: "Achieving these targets will require monitoring, information, assessments and understanding of: the causal relationships between human activities, the pressures they produce and the impacts of these pressures on the environment in general and biodiversity in particular; the options for actions to reduce and prevent biodiversity loss; and the effects and effectiveness of agreed actions on biodiversity."
"There are many inter-related activities that have an impact on biodiversity.
"There are many inter-related activities that have an impact on biodiversity.
Assessments need to be integrated and involve a wide range of expertise and concerned citizens.
Assessments need to be integrated and involve a wide range of expertise and concerned citizens.
In addition, information is limited and inconsistent across Europe on the state and trends in biodiversity.
In addition, information is limited and inconsistent across Europe on the state and trends in biodiversity.
This situation is unlikely to change quickly since biodiversity monitoring is quite time consuming, costly and difficult to prioritise and hence has received relatively little attention for funding."
This situation is unlikely to change quickly since biodiversity monitoring is quite time consuming, costly and difficult to prioritise and hence has received relatively little attention for funding."
At present certain Natura 2000 management activities can be financed under rural development and cohesion policies.
At present certain Natura 2000 management activities can be financed under rural development and cohesion policies.
To-date, funds from these instruments have been used successfully in Natura 2000 sites in a number of instances.
To-date, funds from these instruments have been used successfully in Natura 2000 sites in a number of instances.
However, coverage has been limited, demonstrating that if not given a priority under the relevant regulations, the status quo, will be maintained and a strategically financed network will not be achieved.
However, coverage has been limited, demonstrating that if not given a priority under the relevant regulations, the status quo, will be maintained and a strategically financed network will not be achieved.
The Commission does not propose to make the implementation of the Natura 2000 network obligatory in any of the concerned Funds.
The Commission does not propose to make the implementation of the Natura 2000 network obligatory in any of the concerned Funds.
Without further adjustment to the relevant regulations, this approach may be seen as putting biodiversity at risk, with what could be termed as an 'optimistic' approach.
Without further adjustment to the relevant regulations, this approach may be seen as putting biodiversity at risk, with what could be termed as an 'optimistic' approach.
It is significant that the Commission states that: "it remains to be seen how the Member States will integrate the available opportunities in their programmes and plans for the next financial period."
It is significant that the Commission states that: "it remains to be seen how the Member States will integrate the available opportunities in their programmes and plans for the next financial period."
Further the Commission states: "It is however, not possible to fix a target for the level of this funding since the final expenditure will depend on the priority given to Natura within individual member states programmes".
Further the Commission states: "It is however, not possible to fix a target for the level of this funding since the final expenditure will depend on the priority given to Natura within individual member states programmes".
With less than six years to go before 2010, it is considered unrealistic to expect administrative structures to evolve and deliver large-scale biodiversity gains without maintaining a biodiversity fund to facilitate the mainstreaming process.
With less than six years to go before 2010, it is considered unrealistic to expect administrative structures to evolve and deliver large-scale biodiversity gains without maintaining a biodiversity fund to facilitate the mainstreaming process.
It would be politically and practically regrettable if the EU were to abandon its only dedicated biodiversity fund at this time.
It would be politically and practically regrettable if the EU were to abandon its only dedicated biodiversity fund at this time.
LIFE-Nature has proved successful and good value for money in terms of delivering biodiversity benefits, and has been a success story for the EU’s biodiversity policies.
LIFE-Nature has proved successful and good value for money in terms of delivering biodiversity benefits, and has been a success story for the EU’s biodiversity policies.
Maintaining an adapted biodiversity fund after 2006 would deliver what can be called ‘enhanced integration’ option.
Maintaining an adapted biodiversity fund after 2006 would deliver what can be called ‘enhanced integration’ option.
Even though the Commission in principle, may be correct, that the integration approach is the most effective in the long term, serious doubts exist as to whether this approach will work in practise.
Even though the Commission in principle, may be correct, that the integration approach is the most effective in the long term, serious doubts exist as to whether this approach will work in practise.