Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-241"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030212.8.3-241"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, as the Commission has just said, we are dealing with a report which we will vote on tomorrow, which has been approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, and which in overall terms has supported the report produced by this rapporteur.
replaces two regulations in force until December 2002, the legal basis of which, changed from the former Article 130 to the current Article 175, was changed on 25 February. In other words, it became subject to approval by co-decision. This report studied both protection against fires and atmospheric pollution, and now actions in the field of biodiversity, climate change and the retention of carbon are going to be included. Actions in the sixth framework action programme in the field of the environment which the European Commission and the Community are obliged to implement. However, the proposal replaces the majority of the measures on fire prevention in the former Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92.
Now, the Commissioner has just told us that these measures are included in the rural and regional development programmes which he mentioned. I must say to him that the Member States have already presented the plans of the rural development Regulation, which was approved in 2000, but which has not been able to take account of fire prevention plans. Therefore, it does not seem to make sense to have asked the Member States to guess that in 2003 or at the end of 2002, as it should have been, this Parliament and the Commission were going to debate the replacement of the Regulation and that it was going to be transferred to the rural development programme and furthermore that it was going to be transferred with a miserable budget of EUR 5 million, because this quantity does not appear in the rural development programme. It will therefore have to appear in order to balance the 2002 budget. That is, EUR 18 million per year.
Now, Commissioner, we are spending EUR 18 million. That is what is balanced and consolidated in 2002. The Commission proposes EUR 13 million. It seems absurd that we want to take the same measures, plus those relating to biodiversity, climate change and the retention of carbon, with such a significant reduction in the budget.
I believe that considerable efforts have been made, both by the Council and by this Parliament, to reach to a compromise agreement, with compromise measures which ended in 2006. It appears that it has not been possible for the Commission to reach this agreement. I am sorry, Commissioner, but this is a regulation which is decided by means of co-decision in this Parliament and I therefore believe that the proposal which was originally on the table has been withdrawn by this rapporteur in Amendment No 44 so that we can all discuss it on equal terms. I believe that we all have to make a move, not just Parliament.
Of the amendments presented by the Group of the European Socialist Party, this rapporteur accepts Amendment No 48. However, Amendment No 47 is not acceptable since it would go against the spirit of the report. There are other amendments presented by this rapporteur: two of them are amendments of a legal nature, and a third in which all we ask is that the idea already included in the recitals of increasing the scope of the European forest information system be incorporated into the Articles.
I would have liked to have introduced some other ideas, such as prioritising certain methodological projects and also promoting ‘old’ activities, if I may put it like that, and not just those proposed in the new modules.
I also believe that it would most advisable for the time periods to last one year, and that there be a pilot period, which needs to take account of the frequent interactions of the experts. I do not believe it is a good idea to transfer these issues to the rural development programme, Commissioner, since that would mean moving from the only regulation which is currently subject to co-decision and it is the only regulation which protects our forests. I would say, to use rather unorthodox terms for a plenary session, that this would be like leaving a sweet at the gates of a school.
Commissioner, we have time to clarify both the budget and the harmony of these regulations. I believe we are obliged to do so."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples