natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ettepanekuid rahalise toetuse andmiseks võetakse arvesse ainult siis, kui need vastavad järgmistele kriteeriumidele:
Proposals will not be considered for financial support unless they satisfy the following criteria:
a) need pakuvad lahendust ühenduses levinud või mitmele liikmesriigile tõsist muret tekitavale probleemile;
(a) they offer means of resolving a frequent problem in the Community or one that is causing serious concern to several Member States;
b) need on uuenduslikud kasutatava tehnoloogia või meetodi suhtes;
(b) they are innovative from the point of view of the technology or method used;
c) need kujutavad endast head näidet ja edasiminekut praeguse olukorraga võrreldes;
(c) they constitute an example and an advance compared with the present situation;
d) need taotlevad sellise oskusteabe arendamist ja edasiandmist, mida saab samades või sarnastes olukordades kasutada;
(d) they seek to develop and transfer a form of know-how that can be used in the same or similar situations;
f) need soodustavad keskkonnaalast koostööd;
(e) they foster environmental cooperation;
g) need tuginevad keskkonna suhtes rahuldavale kulude ja tulu suhtele.
(f) they are based on an environmentally satisfactory cost-benefit relationship.
Kui see on asjakohane, tuleks ettepanekute läbivaatamisel arvestada ka nende mõju tööhõivele ning lähtuda sellest, kas need võivad hõlbustada keskkonnakaitsele kaasa aitavate kasulike tehnoloogiate või toodete levikut ja võimalikult laiaulatuslikku kasutust.
Where appropriate, proposals should also be considered in terms of their employment implications and on the basis of whether they can facilitate the dissemination and the widest possible application of useful technologies or products that help to protect the environment.
LIFE vahendi kahe osa vahel jagunevad summad soovituslikult järgmiselt:
The amounts allocated to each of the two components of LIFE are indicatively the following:
LIFE vahendi osade vahel jagunevad summad soovituslikult järgmiselt:
The amounts allocated to the components of LIFE are indicatively the following:
LIFE+ Natura 2000 alade haldamine: 90%
LIFE+ Management of Natura 2000 sites: 90%
LIFE+ rakendamine ja haldamine: 75–80%
LIFE + Implementation and governance : 75-80%
LIFE+ rakendamine ja haldamine
LIFE + Implementation and governance
LIFE+ teave ja teabevahetus 20–25%
LIFE + Information and communication : 20-25%
LIFE+ teave ja teabevahetus
LIFE + Information and communication
In view of the sum necessary to cover the management costs of the Natura 2000 network, around 90% of available funding needs to be allocated to the 'Management of the Natura 2000 network' component.
In view of the sum necessary to cover the management costs of the Natura 2000 network, around 90% of available funding needs to be allocated to the 'Management of the Natura 2000 network' component.
The rest would go to the two other components.
The rest would go to the two other components.
Lisa 3 a (uus)
Annex 3 a (new)
Lisa 3 a.
Annex 3a.
Peamiselt keskkonnakaitse valdkonnas tegutsevate valitsusväliste organisatsioonide edendamine
Promotion of non-governmental organisations primarily active in environmental protection
Vahendist LIFE + kaasfinantseeritakse nende valitsusväliste organisatsioonide tegevusi või toimimist, kes tegutsevad peamiselt keskkonnakaitse ja -edendamise valdkonnas Euroopa tasandil.
LIFE + shall co-fund operating or action grants for NGOs which are primarily active in protecting and enhancing the environment at European level.
Toetuse saamiseks peab valitsusväline organisatsioon vastama järgmistele tingimustele:
In order to qualify for a grant, an NGO shall have the following characteristics:
– olema iseseisev ja kasumit mittetaotlev juriidiline isik, kes tegutseb peamiselt keskkonnakaitse ja -edendamise valdkonnas üldsuse huvides ning kelle eesmärk on saavutada säästev areng;
- it must be an independent and non-profit-making legal person primarily active in protecting and enhancing the environment for the common good and with a view to achieving sustainable development;
– tegutsema Euroopa tasandil üksinda või struktureeritud assotsiatsiooni vormis (liikmesuse alusel) ning vähemalt kolmes Euroopa riigis;
- it must be active at European level, either alone or in the form of a association with a structure (membership base) and activities covering at least three European countries.
– olema kaasatud ELi poliitika ja õiguse väljatöötamisse ja rakendamisse.
- it must be involved in the development and implementation of EU policy and legislation.
Environmental NGOs play an essential role in making the connection between the EU institutions and the general public, in this way contributing to good environmental governance.
Environmental NGOs play an essential role in making the connection between the EU institutions and the general public, in this way contributing to good environmental governance.
In order to contribute to their efficiency and impact, the new regulation should provide for a rather predictable multiannual framework for these organisations (notwithstanding the right of the Commission to judge individual organisations on their performance and the quality of their plans).
In order to contribute to their efficiency and impact, the new regulation should provide for a rather predictable multiannual framework for these organisations (notwithstanding the right of the Commission to judge individual organisations on their performance and the quality of their plans).
NGO support should have a clear link with EU policies, meaning that this type of activity does not lend itself for decentralisation.
NGO support should have a clear link with EU policies, meaning that this type of activity does not lend itself for decentralisation.
Life +: the new budgetary policy for the environment
Life +: the new budgetary policy for the environment
The discussions about LIFE+ concern far more than the financial instrument itself.
The discussions about LIFE+ concern far more than the financial instrument itself.
It cannot be detached from the other policies under discussion, be it the proposed regulations on the Rural Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund or Objective 2, the future financial instruments for innovative technologies, the New Neighbourhood Policy or, of course, the next European Union budget.
It cannot be detached from the other policies under discussion, be it the proposed regulations on the Rural Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund or Objective 2, the future financial instruments for innovative technologies, the New Neighbourhood Policy or, of course, the next European Union budget.
At a time when the financial perspective is being redefined for a seven-year period (from 2007 to 2013), it is also appropriate to take an overall look at the share of the Community budget dedicated to the environment.
At a time when the financial perspective is being redefined for a seven-year period (from 2007 to 2013), it is also appropriate to take an overall look at the share of the Community budget dedicated to the environment.
The approaches taken by the various committees must therefore coincide to ensure the cohesion of the next budget and to achieve the political goals the European Union has set itself.
The approaches taken by the various committees must therefore coincide to ensure the cohesion of the next budget and to achieve the political goals the European Union has set itself.
An overall view is all the more important given the ambitiousness of the Union's objectives.
An overall view is all the more important given the ambitiousness of the Union's objectives.
While the environment was for a long time in direct competition with other policies (agriculture and regional development in particular) that were the cause of a significant decline in resources, today the Union's sectoral policies incorporate or should incorporate environmental policy.
While the environment was for a long time in direct competition with other policies (agriculture and regional development in particular) that were the cause of a significant decline in resources, today the Union's sectoral policies incorporate or should incorporate environmental policy.
As a result, some environmental investment projects are financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund (water management etc.).
As a result, some environmental investment projects are financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund (water management etc.).
However, incorporating environmental policy is not enough: in order to respond to the specific nature of the objectives targeted in the complex, wide-ranging and transversal area of the environment, the financial instrument LIFE was created in 1992.
However, incorporating environmental policy is not enough: in order to respond to the specific nature of the objectives targeted in the complex, wide-ranging and transversal area of the environment, the financial instrument LIFE was created in 1992.
It is undoubtedly the main tool for promoting environmental projects, although some environmental policies have benefited from specific programmes, equipped with low budgets, such as Urban, support for NGOs, Forest Focus and marine pollution.
It is undoubtedly the main tool for promoting environmental projects, although some environmental policies have benefited from specific programmes, equipped with low budgets, such as Urban, support for NGOs, Forest Focus and marine pollution.
The LIFE instrument underwent three periods.
The LIFE instrument underwent three periods.
The most recent, LIFE III, had three components:
The most recent, LIFE III, had three components:
- LIFE-Nature covering nature conservation measures;
- LIFE-Nature covering nature conservation measures;
- LIFE-Environment covering innovative projects to improve the environment;
- LIFE-Environment covering innovative projects to improve the environment;
- LIFE-Third Countries supporting sustainable development projects in third countries.
- LIFE-Third Countries supporting sustainable development projects in third countries.
In spite of the modest budgets, LIFE enabled remarkable projects to be set up at all levels.
In spite of the modest budgets, LIFE enabled remarkable projects to be set up at all levels.
Under LIFE-Environment , for example, pilot projects were launched to improve environmental quality (energy conservation, waste management, innovative business techniques etc.).
Under LIFE-Environment , for example, pilot projects were launched to improve environmental quality (energy conservation, waste management, innovative business techniques etc.).
LIFE-Nature will prove to have yielded the most benefits, having served as the first step towards the selection and management of the Natura 2000 sites.
LIFE-Nature will prove to have yielded the most benefits, having served as the first step towards the selection and management of the Natura 2000 sites.
It should be remembered that the designation of Natura 2000 sites was not an entirely smooth process.
It should be remembered that the designation of Natura 2000 sites was not an entirely smooth process.
The delay in setting up the network was due to the refusal by some Member States to acknowledge the benefits of Natura 2000.
The delay in setting up the network was due to the refusal by some Member States to acknowledge the benefits of Natura 2000.
Where projects have been completed, however, Natura 2000 has proved that it makes a decisive contribution to sustainable development.
Where projects have been completed, however, Natura 2000 has proved that it makes a decisive contribution to sustainable development.
Outlook for LIFE + for the 2007-2013 period
Outlook for LIFE + for the 2007-2013 period
The issue of the day is the funding of EU environmental policies.
The issue of the day is the funding of EU environmental policies.
In its proposal, the Commission has retained the specifically environmental nature of the LIFE+ financial instrument, which is to be welcomed.
In its proposal, the Commission has retained the specifically environmental nature of the LIFE+ financial instrument, which is to be welcomed.
LIFE has been the only financial instrument so far to contribute effectively to the implementation and development of EU environment policy and legislation.
LIFE has been the only financial instrument so far to contribute effectively to the implementation and development of EU environment policy and legislation.
However, the objectives and content of LIFE+ as set out under the Commission's proposal for a regulation are rather puzzling.
However, the objectives and content of LIFE+ as set out under the Commission's proposal for a regulation are rather puzzling.
The vagueness and lack of precision on basic issues concerning the achievement of the environmental objectives under the Gothenburg Sustainable Development Strategy and relating to the conservation of biodiversity and the fight against climate change raise questions about the real ambitions of the Commission proposal.
The vagueness and lack of precision on basic issues concerning the achievement of the environmental objectives under the Gothenburg Sustainable Development Strategy and relating to the conservation of biodiversity and the fight against climate change raise questions about the real ambitions of the Commission proposal.
The integration question: what guarantees are there for the environment?
The integration question: what guarantees are there for the environment?
In order to implement environmental policy, the Commission has chosen to focus on integration as a means of generating funds, leaving the responsibility for the selection and completion of projects to others, who are not necessarily equipped with the requisite environmental awareness and expertise.
In order to implement environmental policy, the Commission has chosen to focus on integration as a means of generating funds, leaving the responsibility for the selection and completion of projects to others, who are not necessarily equipped with the requisite environmental awareness and expertise.
The Commission's proposal for LIFE+ shows that it has relinquished responsibility at European level for the implementation of environmental policy and delegated it to the Member States.
The Commission's proposal for LIFE+ shows that it has relinquished responsibility at European level for the implementation of environmental policy and delegated it to the Member States.
The Commission proposes an 'à la carte' European environment policy, which means EU Member States are free to choose which projects will be carried out with Union cofinancing.
The Commission proposes an 'à la carte' European environment policy, which means EU Member States are free to choose which projects will be carried out with Union cofinancing.
This transfer of responsibility ignores the obvious: environmental policy must be drafted at European level as the environment has no borders.
This transfer of responsibility ignores the obvious: environmental policy must be drafted at European level as the environment has no borders.
This transfer is, therefore, unacceptable and would result in the loss of the overall cohesion of the Union's environmental policies.
This transfer is, therefore, unacceptable and would result in the loss of the overall cohesion of the Union's environmental policies.
LIFE+ will mainly concern measures to support environmental policy and will focus on two areas: 'implementation and governance' and 'information and communication'.
LIFE+ will mainly concern measures to support environmental policy and will focus on two areas: 'implementation and governance' and 'information and communication'.
The objectives listed are astonishing when you are aware of what it is needed to achieve the objectives set by the Union (such as the major challenge of climate change and water policy under the Framework Directive, which will require considerable investment).
The objectives listed are astonishing when you are aware of what it is needed to achieve the objectives set by the Union (such as the major challenge of climate change and water policy under the Framework Directive, which will require considerable investment).
Lacking the necessary funds, the Commission is counting on the strategy of incorporating the environment into all policies.
Lacking the necessary funds, the Commission is counting on the strategy of incorporating the environment into all policies.
It hopes, by way of the Union's other, well-funded policies, to ensure the implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy and the Lisbon Strategy, both with a strong environmental flavour, without putting forward any kind of figure.
It hopes, by way of the Union's other, well-funded policies, to ensure the implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy and the Lisbon Strategy, both with a strong environmental flavour, without putting forward any kind of figure.
Without any guarantees, this transversal proposal is doomed to failure.
Without any guarantees, this transversal proposal is doomed to failure.
The proposal's second shortcoming is undoubtedly the failure to make any mention of funding for the management of the Natura 2000 network for the 2007-2013 period.
The proposal's second shortcoming is undoubtedly the failure to make any mention of funding for the management of the Natura 2000 network for the 2007-2013 period.
This is in spite of the fact that the Working Group on Article 8 of the Habitats Directive stressed in its report that 'the Habitats Directive and Natura 2000 have assumed (…) strategic importance [and] are now recognised as being the EU's principal tools for achieving the new global and EU objective of halting the decline in biodiversity by 2010.'
This is in spite of the fact that the Working Group on Article 8 of the Habitats Directive stressed in its report that 'the Habitats Directive and Natura 2000 have assumed (…) strategic importance [and] are now recognised as being the EU's principal tools for achieving the new global and EU objective of halting the decline in biodiversity by 2010.'
The 'integrationist' approach the Commission is proposing for Natura 2000 would be compatible with a Community policy that included responsibility for the management of Natura 2000 sites in the text and the budget lines of the structural policies.
The 'integrationist' approach the Commission is proposing for Natura 2000 would be compatible with a Community policy that included responsibility for the management of Natura 2000 sites in the text and the budget lines of the structural policies.
In its communication on financing Natura 2000, the Commission acknowledges the cost of managing Natura 2000 to be EUR 6.1 bn, EUR 5 bn of which is to be allocated to the 15 'old' Member States and EUR 1 bn to the 10 new Member States.
In its communication on financing Natura 2000, the Commission acknowledges the cost of managing Natura 2000 to be EUR 6.1 bn, EUR 5 bn of which is to be allocated to the 15 'old' Member States and EUR 1 bn to the 10 new Member States.
According to environmental organisations, these estimates account for only half of the real investment needed for site management.
According to environmental organisations, these estimates account for only half of the real investment needed for site management.
The sum of EUR 6.1 bn should, therefore, be considered the absolute minimum.
The sum of EUR 6.1 bn should, therefore, be considered the absolute minimum.
These needs, half of which must be covered by the Member States, are not mentioned in any budgetary line or as a percentage in the Structural Funds, which, according to the Commission, are nevertheless intended to finance it.
These needs, half of which must be covered by the Member States, are not mentioned in any budgetary line or as a percentage in the Structural Funds, which, according to the Commission, are nevertheless intended to finance it.
The Article 8 Working Group confirms that 'the Commission has completely forgotten the essential condition for choosing the Structural Funds, which is inserting the specific requirement in the EAFRD, ERDF and ESF instruments that they should support the proper management of Natura 2000.'
The Article 8 Working Group confirms that 'the Commission has completely forgotten the essential condition for choosing the Structural Funds, which is inserting the specific requirement in the EAFRD, ERDF and ESF instruments that they should support the proper management of Natura 2000.'
Furthermore, to obtain assistance from the Structural Funds, it will have to be demonstrated that the actions financed will be of benefit economically and socially, meaning that the management of natural habitats, marshes, forests, calcareous grasslands and the protection of species will not be eligible for funding.
Furthermore, to obtain assistance from the Structural Funds, it will have to be demonstrated that the actions financed will be of benefit economically and socially, meaning that the management of natural habitats, marshes, forests, calcareous grasslands and the protection of species will not be eligible for funding.
It will be equally difficult to share aid earmarked for rural development with Natura 2000, as rural areas are also a priority.
It will be equally difficult to share aid earmarked for rural development with Natura 2000, as rural areas are also a priority.
In fact, no sum has been mentioned for fear of frightening either party.
In fact, no sum has been mentioned for fear of frightening either party.
Without this transparency, however, Natura 2000 managers must be prepared for a dirty battle.
Without this transparency, however, Natura 2000 managers must be prepared for a dirty battle.
It is neither desirable nor acceptable that the protection of biodiversity should have to compete with other Union policies.
It is neither desirable nor acceptable that the protection of biodiversity should have to compete with other Union policies.
It does not seem unlikely that the principle of integrating the environment into other policies will prove to create rivalry and that the environment, the eternal poor relation in the EU budget, and Natura 2000 in particular, will, in fact, be the recipient of a laughable amount of funding.
It does not seem unlikely that the principle of integrating the environment into other policies will prove to create rivalry and that the environment, the eternal poor relation in the EU budget, and Natura 2000 in particular, will, in fact, be the recipient of a laughable amount of funding.
It is the Commission, therefore, that must continue to be responsible for the implementation of Natura 2000 and the protection of biodiversity, which has been acknowledged to be of European interest and a priority issue.
It is the Commission, therefore, that must continue to be responsible for the implementation of Natura 2000 and the protection of biodiversity, which has been acknowledged to be of European interest and a priority issue.
By masking the issue of cofinancing Natura 2000 in this way, the Commission is compromising its implementation.
By masking the issue of cofinancing Natura 2000 in this way, the Commission is compromising its implementation.
Without European cofinancing, all that has been achieved so far, and not without difficulty, is in jeopardy, which would make Natura 2000 a fine example of a project over before it has begun.
Without European cofinancing, all that has been achieved so far, and not without difficulty, is in jeopardy, which would make Natura 2000 a fine example of a project over before it has begun.
Rapporteur's suggestions
Rapporteur's suggestions
It is because the options presented by the Commission do not guarantee this funding that the cost of implementing Natura 2000 has been inserted into the LIFE+ instrument by including the 'LIFE+ Management of the Natura 2000 network' component and reminding the Commission and the Council of their responsibilities.
It is because the options presented by the Commission do not guarantee this funding that the cost of implementing Natura 2000 has been inserted into the LIFE+ instrument by including the 'LIFE+ Management of the Natura 2000 network' component and reminding the Commission and the Council of their responsibilities.