| Although the directives on conservation of natural habitats , the elimination of PCBs and PCTs , and the protection of waters from nitrate pollution are only inadequately applied in the Member States , this does not mean by any means that these are poor directives which must be changed , as some people in this House would seek to have us believe.These directives fully live up to the ambitions of the citizens of Europe , who are demanding that greater attention be paid to environmental matters and are seeking arbitration from the European authorities. The great numbers of complaints and petitions received by the Committee on Petitions regarding environmental infractions and violations of these directives testify to these expectations.The fact is , if the directives are only partially implemented , it is because the Member States had not weighed the consequences when adopting them. They had not taken on board the implications of the financial costs or the amendments , which could be fundamental , that these directives would require in their policies. This is true both of the Habitats Directive and the Nitrates Directive since they both require the review of agricultural and regional planning policies which may cause pollution or destruction of natural environments.The implementation of the Habitats Directive is intended to provide long - term protection for a European network of biologically outstanding natural habitats and to exempt them from future redevelopment in order to prevent conflicts in land use or damage to those environments. These objectives have , admittedly , been very badly presented in the Member States , causing occasionally very bitter conflicts between the owners and users of these areas. Yet there was no shortage of positive results in those instances where proper coordination was achieved , since the Habitats Directive does indeed make it possible to support heritage - friendly management methods by making adequate compensation available.This Habitats Directive is truly innovative in terms of regional planning and nature conservation in that it reconciles the management and the use of outstanding natural sites in order to make the best use of land. To this end , the European Union must make every effort to support the implementation of this directive.The European Union absolutely must not yield to the industrial interests which would negate the very spirit of the directive.The Commission , as Guardian of the Treaties , must firstly adopt a firm stance with regard to the Member States in order to ensure that they implement these directives and , secondly , to stand firm against attempts to amend these directives even before they have been able to demonstrate their full relevance , particularly in the areas of dealing with nitrate pollution in water and protecting and raising the profile of outstanding natural sites.For the above reasons , the Group of the Greens supports all the reports presented , particularly the Sjöstedt report , which will contribute to improving the implementation of the Habitats Directive.The reason why we abstained , then , is that we do not feel that the last - minute attempts to change the nature of the report , seeking to weaken the Habitats Directive and to urge that it be amended , are in line with respecting the directives on which we are voting.Parish report Fatuzzo . Mr President , I would be most grateful if you would reserve just a snippet of your attention , which I am sure is in no short supply , for the explanation of my vote for the Parish report on young farmers. I would stress the importance of milk produced by young farmers and of supporting the product at this difficult time for the farming world. I remember a film from the 1960s , directed by the famous Federico Fellini with Anita Akberg in the leading roll. There was a poster of her urging all the passers - by to drink milk | Herr Präsident , meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren. Es geht in dem Bericht Parish um die Zukunft der Junglandwirte in der Europäischen Union. Wieder werden neue Subventionen , so genannte Niederlassungsbeihilfen gefordert. Ich habe den Bericht abgelehnt. Der Bericht tut so , als sei alles in Ordnung. Nichts ist allerdings in Ordnung. BSE stellt das gesamte Agrarsystem in Frage. Wir geben die Kleinigkeit von fast 100 Milliarden DM pro Jahr für die Landwirtschaft aus. Das ist immerhin die Hälfte des europäischen Haushalts. Wir fragen uns langsam : Was bekommen wir dafür. Schweinepest , Hormonkälber , Dioxinhühner und jetzt die BSE - Epidemie.Langsam ekeln wir uns , glaube ich , vor dieser Nahrungskette , die wir produzieren , vielleicht langsam auch vor uns selbst. Statt Gräser und Körner verfüttern wir an Rinder Kadaver von Hauskatzen , Käfigratten und anderen Tieren , und ich glaube , dass das genau der Punkt ist , der jetzt mitbesprochen werden muss. Die Vermüllung und Fäkalisierung unserer Kost ist die logische Konsequenz einer irrsinnigen Agrarpolitik , die jetzt mit Sicherheit an dieser Stelle beendet werden muss. Wir müssen es grundsätzlich diskutieren , damit diese planwirtschaftlichen Subventionsausschüttungen in Zukunft nicht mehr stattfinden. Genau das müssen wir den jungen Landwirten sagen. Das müssen wir mit den jungen Landwirten diskutieren , sie müssen ohne Subventionen am Markt bestehen können. Das hat der Bericht in keiner Weise zum Inhalt. Deswegen ist er abzulehnen. Von einem großen Werbeplakat herunter forderte sie alle Passanten auf , Milch zu trinken |
