Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-18-Speech-4-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010118.3.4-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to thank those who helped to have the debate on this report moved to a time when we can speak about it and vote on it today, in the daytime. If the report had been discussed in the evening it would have been insulting to the four million employees directly or indirectly connected with the forestry industry cluster. This sector is responsible for a tenth of the total industrial output for the EU and a third of the world’s forest industry production. All of us present here know the problems that the Thursday evening sittings will pose from this day on.
During the debate on the Commission communication it became apparent that the Forestry Industry Cluster is extremely heterogeneous. Publishers and printing works use paper and other forest industry products, but many of them see themselves mainly as content producers. The content industry’s output is characterised, not just by its use of paper, but also by the new electronic industry: electronic communication. The report expresses the hope that the Commission will also take account of the special features of competitiveness in these new industries. The report recommends that the peat industry should be included in this cluster. Peat has its own part to play in forest-based industries, particularly in the Nordic countries and in Ireland. The report does not adopt a position on whether peat is a renewable or a fossil fuel. However, as it is produced industrially, these producers must have their place in EU administration. In the opinion of the rapporteur, the report contains an unnecessary number of additional conclusions relating to forestry, but it was the wish of the committee, although Parliament has already expressed its view on forestry matters in the recent Thomas report. Nothing more needs to be added; instead, its conclusions should be put into effect in the Commission in a more proactive way than is the case at present.
The Commission must also carefully study the conclusions of Mr Pesälä, speaking on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The forestry cluster represents the open sector of the economy, where the activity is conducted in globally competing markets. For that reason, I cannot agree with the amendment proposed by my colleagues, Mrs Schierhuber and Mr Rübig, that the Directorate-General on Agriculture should be responsible for forestry. Agriculture in the EU is not accustomed to working in accordance with the conditions of the open sector. The same problem also relates to Mrs Ainardi’s proposed amendment. Mrs Flesch’s amendment, in my opinion, is taken account of in the text adopted by the committee and not least on the basis of her own amendments. The special needs of the content industry are dealt with thoroughly in my report, and, for that reason, I do not think this amendment is necessary at this stage.
Wood is a renewable natural resource. It has many uses; for example, it can be used in the energy industry. The report accepts the principle according to which forestry products should be used for the production of energy only at the end of the production chain, after which there is no longer any other use for it and it cannot be recycled. Member States are the best experts when it comes to managing their own forests. The multipurpose utilisation of forests, their importance as sinks of carbon dioxide, and their preservation for future generations will be best realised though the application of the principle of subsidiarity, and there is no justification for increasing the Commission's powers in forestry matters. Instead, it has an important job to do, safeguarding the competitiveness of forest-based industries. The needs of the forestry industry must also be taken into account in commercial policy. The European forestry cluster will succeed amid fierce competition if the rules are the same for all. If the over-exploitation of nature and people is not allowed in Europe, it should not be allowed elsewhere.
The diverse utilisation of wood can improve employment, especially in rural areas, and, consequently, forests also connect with the EU’s employment strategy. Science and research must find new uses for wood. For example, using grass to make chemical pulp would mean more wood for other purposes. Such ideas must be promoted within a new Framework Programme of research. Wood can be used more in construction, as an environmentally friendly and healthy material. And finally: if the forests do well, so will people."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples