Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-15-Speech-3-269"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060215.16.3-269"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have been greatly encouraged by the very engaged and highly interesting debate on this important issue, and I should like now to refer to some of the questions that have been raised during our discussion.
Finally, I shall make two comments on the content of the action plan. Firstly, the action plan will be designed in accordance with the key principles of the European Union forestry strategy. The main responsibility for forest policy lies with the Member States, and actions at Community level will continue to be based on the principle of subsidiarity. Our intention is to concentrate Community actions on those areas where there is a clear added value.
The second point is that the action plan will also identify Community instruments that can be used by the Member States for the implementation of the proposed actions, for instance, the new Rural Development Regulation, the LIFE+ instrument or – as was also mentioned here – the seventh Research Framework Programme. In this respect, the action plan will strengthen the overall visibility of forestry and increase the complementarity of different Community actions in support of sustainable forest management.
Concerning the specific proposals in the report, the Commission welcomes the recommendations contained in paragraphs 1, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 29. There are a number of recommendations, notably paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 30, which are addressed also to the Member States, and the Commission will discuss these specific proposals with the Member States when we elaborate further on the action plan.
The Commission has also taken good note of recommendation 9, and we will look into it: coordination is certainly an issue to be addressed.
Finally, there are a number of recommendations, such as 2, 13, 15, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 32, which will go beyond the key principle of the European forest strategy or may not be completely in line with the regulations already adopted.
Once again, I thank you for an extremely interesting and very good report and also for this engaged discussion, which has been very supportive.
On vertical integration in the Commission, two main points must be noted. Firstly, the Commission has very recently set up a new unit in its Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development with a much stronger focus on forestry. This unit is presently coordinating the preparatory work on the EU forest action plan and chairs the meetings of the interservice group on forestry.
Secondly, the interservice group on forestry, which was established in 2002 to facilitate cooperation and coordination of forestry-related work between relevant Commission services, has proved to be an effective tool of coordination and is working very satisfactorily. Its membership has increased and now comprises 11 Commission services. It is very actively involved in the preparation of the action plan and will have a very important role in its implementation.
Regarding the legal basis, several legal studies have been carried out in the Member States concerning the creation of a separate legal basis for forestry in the Treaties. In our opinion, unless the position of the Member States changes, the added value of further legal studies on this issue is questionable.
Regarding the concerns raised about the establishment of a European forest observatory, I believe that this should be discussed primarily among the Member States, which have the main responsibility for our forestry policy. They can assess the added value of such an initiative in the light of the current structures and existing international institutions.
I am aware of the importance of the problem of forest fires in the European Union and the need to continue to prevent these situations from arising. I had the opportunity to see the horrible consequences of these forest fires last year during a visit to Portugal. The current Rural Development Regulation provides support to the Member States for important forest fire prevention measures, such as fire breaks, water points and preventive sylviculture, as well as for the restoration of the forestry production potential in forests that have been damaged by fires.
I should like to indicate that these actions will be continued during the period 2007–2013 under the new Rural Development Regulation, and Member States will, therefore, have the possibility to include forest fire prevention measures in their rural development programmes. The rural development measures will be complemented by the actions that will be undertaken under the LIFE+ programme for the next financial period.
In this respect, following an initiative of the European Parliament, the Commission will launch a study to examine the main causes of forest deterioration in Europe, including forest fires, and the efficiency of the current measures, as well as possible future options to improve the situation.
Quite a few honourable Members mentioned state-owned forests. It is clear that the main objective for rural development is to revitalise rural areas and not to finance public authorities’ activities. This is why the main target group of beneficiaries of the rural development measures related to forestry is the private sector, notably farmers, foresters and, under axis 3 in the rural development policy, the broader rural society. However, there are derogations concerning the exclusion of state-owned forests from support under the new Rural Development Regulation in order to take into account the specific situations of certain regions and the characteristics of particular measures."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples