Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-315"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.13.4-315"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We are discussing the two Council regulations establishing a form of systematic surveillance of forestry ecosystems which is unique in the world.
While awaiting the matter of extending these programmes beyond 2001, it is our political responsibility to provide them with financial support. For the data gathered is intended to be used as technical justification for political decisions in areas where ‘nothing to report’ means ‘no action necessary’.
Regulation No 3582/86 is about the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution and Regulation No 2158/92 has established a framework for the protection of forests against fires. The rapporteur proposes increasing the sums allocated to both of these programmes, whereas the Commission proposal seeks to cut them drastically. The rapporteur’s attitude is an appropriate one. It does seem logical to take account of the virtual doubling of the Community’s forested surface area since the last round of enlargement in 1998 and to fulfil the requirements of the European Union’s forestry strategy.
Admittedly, there is no legal basis in the Treaty for a common forestry policy. We are not using this report to start up the debate again but simply to point out that the European Union’s forestry strategy is based on subsidiarity. In other words, action is only proposed if it offers added value in relation to national action. The problem is identifying whether there actually is added value. Subsidiarity works in favour of Community action in this specific context.
It is true that the issues in all the forests of the Fifteen Member States are not identical. So, the Nordic countries, which since 1998 have comprised most of Europe’s forested areas, are affected most of all by atmospheric pollution, stresses due to climatic factors and soil acidification whereas the countries of southern Europe are more subject to the effects of desertification, drought and fires. These disparities must not, however, preclude the need to operate a monitoring system of this type at Community level, at this time when the interdependence of the stress factors acting on forestry ecosystems in general and as a whole has been acknowledged.
Increasing the financial allocation would, moreover, come at an opportune moment, because our forestry areas are threatened by fire following the terrible storms last December, and indeed many outbreaks of fire have already been reported. If we are to prevent disasters of this type, then we must improve fire safety.
Now, when the Commission’s communication of 2 February 2000 advocates resorting to the all-out precautionary principle and a Community action programme in favour of civil protection instituted by the Council Decision of 9 December 1999 is waiting only to be implemented, is not the time to cut off funding for Regulation No 2158/92.
Combating atmospheric pollution takes on a new dimension in the light of the guidelines established by the Commission regarding climate change, biodiversity and sustainable management. Ecosystem surveillance promises to be a multidisciplinary activity. If atmospheric pollution has lost something of its extremely topical nature in the face of these priorities, it may be consistently integrated into the list of planet-wide challenges.
The heart of the problem is political, however. Some Member States have expressed doubts as to the importance of forests, even though the forestry industry employs 2.2 million people in Europe, and forests cover 36% of the surface area of the European Union!
We have this vicious circle scenario. The regulations in question need political support. In order to receive political support, however, the networks must be capable of detecting changes and indeed risks, and financial support is needed in order to prove the existence of such risks in scientific terms!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples