Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-11-Speech-2-465"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080311.37.2-465"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
I think that the Commissioner summarised his concerns on a number of points very well. The Commission proposal on the regulation concerning statistics and pesticides is indeed directly linked to the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
Thanks to the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the whole concept of biocides, which the Commissioner, too, discussed, has ultimately crept into the report. This has met with opposition, particularly from the PPE-DE Group, and so, together with the PSE Group, and on behalf of my group, I have attempted to overcome this problem by drawing up two amendments based on an earlier text further to a report by Mrs Klaß, which was adopted at first reading. I know that the PPE-DE Group, and Mr Nassauer, still have problems with this, but I hope that it will not be an insurmountable obstacle in the final vote; after all, we are attempting to bow to the majority view in the European Parliament on this.
Another sticking point with the PPE-DE Group, ladies and gentlemen, is the decision of the Committee on the Environment to extend the scope of the regulation from pesticide sales and use to pesticide production, import, export and distribution. The PPE-DE Group fears this will mean an extra burden on businesses. To be frank, Mr Nassauer, I would venture to doubt that, since these data are available in any case, and there is actually no need for any additional calculations in this regard.
Contrary to Mr Nassauer’s assertions, I am convinced that the inclusion of these data will ensure a better overview of undesirable and even illegal flows. I think that this knowledge will be of benefit in realising one of the objectives of the regulation, which the Commissioner, too, clearly stated, namely reducing risks and the impact on the environment and public health resulting from pesticides. I also think that these two particular arguments will ensure that any WTO cases from third countries can be countered.
I should like to thank my fellow Members for their most constructive cooperation. I hope that we succeed in obtaining a large majority in favour of my report, so that I am able to conduct productive negotiations with the Council at second reading. I would also like to thank the Commission for its excellent cooperation, and also the Eurostat officials, who always made themselves available and were genuinely most helpful in bringing this report into being. Many thanks, ladies and gentlemen.
As the Commissioner also made very clear, the aim is Europe-wide harmonisation of national statistics on the use and placing on the market of pesticides, which must be achieved at the level where it is most feasible in functional terms. The aim, therefore – and it is an important one – is to use those data to reduce, in the medium term, the risks and impact on the environment and public health resulting from the use of pesticides.
When drawing up my report, I had four objectives:
1. to ensure sufficient comparability of data;
2. to avoid duplication of data collection;
3. to extend the scope to non-agricultural uses;
4. to make full use of the data thus obtained via a moral obligation to report.
I believe I have achieved these four objectives following the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, but I know that there are still difficulties. In particular, shadow rapporteur Mr Nassauer argued on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that data collection should be regulated in a proper and efficient manner, in terms not only of the confidential treatment of those data but also of public access and transparency. I think that Mr Nassauer and I have held very constructive discussions and that his concerns have been realised, including in the vote in the Committee on the Environment, which was almost unanimous.
We also succeeded in arriving at good wording with regard to the extension of the scope to the non-agricultural sector. We have now opted for data collection for not only agricultural and horticultural, but also professional non-agricultural use, such as maintenance work on roads, railways and communal green areas."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples