Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-11-Speech-2-466"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-03-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Statistics on plant protection products (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080311.37.2-466"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-03-11-Speech-2-4672
lpv:speaker	lp:Hartmut Nassauer2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 member; JURI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (2007-02-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is consensus on the fact that we wish to reduce the harmful effects on people and the environment emanating from the use of pesticides. In order to be able to calculate these effects, indicators need to be developed. In order to be able to develop them, we need data. To ascertain this data, we need this directive. I emphasise this in order to make it clear that this does not involve authorising pesticides, or using them, but merely ascertaining data suitable for developing appropriate indicators. There is agreement on this. We have also gone to great lengths to reach common positions, as Mr Staes has rightly demonstrated, and this has also been amazingly successful. We have agreed that the scope of application has to be extended to the non-agricultural sector. We have also found a consistent position for protecting company and trade secrets. Two items remain unresolved between us: the first is the inclusion of biocides. I fully share the position expressed by the Commissioner. There are no fundamental objections to it, but we do not have the necessary knowledge at present to take this step in a meaningful way. I have no reservations against it in principle, as I have said. This can take place at an appropriate time. The second item carries more weight. We categorically object to the fact that not only the application, but also the production of pesticides is included in the scope of application, because the production process as such does not provide any information about the application. Products are exported to third countries; products are stored before they are used. Hence production, as has been said, does not yield anything as such for the purpose for which we are issuing this directive and we would therefore gladly eliminate it. Nevertheless, I would say, Mr Staes, that if the Commission manages to abide by the compromises that we have worked out, your report will not come to grief in our final vote."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph