MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Germany –
Source: NABU – naturschutzbund Deutschland completely the wrong direction in the financing proposal of the EU Council
The medium-term financial planning (MFF) of the EU has considerable gaps: Neither ten percent of the budget is reserved for biodiversity, the Green Deal is under-funded. Anyway, the 25 per cent, from our point of view are much too little.
Euro Coins Photo: European Community
18. February 2020 – last Friday, as published in the EU Council President, Charles Michel, his long-awaited bargaining proposal for the future EU budget to 2021. This proposal forms the basis for the negotiations between the EU heads of state and heads of government next Thursday. Even if observers consider it unlikely that it is coming this week to an agreement, so this summit will be the in spite of direction. All the more regrettable that President Michel in his paper concerns the environment the completely wrong direction pretending and President of the Commission Of the Leyen with your Green Deal hang.Also, the NABU sees the proposal to be extremely critical. This still contains no specific funding for the EU-nature protection, although, in the meantime, the European Parliament also calls on ten percent of the budget for biodiversity should be reserved. When it comes to climate protection, the paper does not go beyond the low target of 25 per cent of the budget, which was tabled by the Juncker Commission. Michel continues on the assumption that 40 percent of the CAP to contribute to this objective, although a new NABU-study had debunked this Recently as null and void.
NABU – the demands on a sustainable EU budget more money for nature conservation, 15 billion euros of agricultural subsidies:in addition to the planned output target for climate protection must be anchored to a separate target for the biodiversity of at least ten per cent of the EU budget, as France and the European Parliament. The Commission shall be obliged to report regularly on the achievement of these issue objectives of the report.No harmful subsidies:negative examples from the EU’s common agricultural policy coupled payments for intensive animal husbandry, and the destruction of landscape elements by the wrong incentives at the eligibility conditions. The new EU budget must therefore include a mechanism that assesses the entire programme planning for EU funds for environmental impacts and the Commission is obliged to intervene if funds for environmentally harmful spending are set.
On the weekend of Charles Michel had tried to spread about nicely produced Social Media Videos in the run-up to the summit of optimism. These are not able to cover the volume of criticism to come flying out of all sides of his figures, however. The discussion among the heads of state and government*the interior on Thursday, is likely to be heated, especially along the lines of conflict between net-paying and NettoempfängerÜ*inside.We call on Chancellor Merkel, that you can redeem on the weekend, finally, the promise of the coalition agreement, and for better nature protection financing uses. Required level would be at the EU alone, 15 billion euros per year to the existing nature conservation to implement the guidelines. In contrast to the environmental payments in the case of agricultural subsidies, harmful directly, that would be indeed money well invested.
Blog on the MFF
More on the topic of
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and/or sentence structure need be perfect.