Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-278"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.11.2-278"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I, for my part, would also like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur and the Commission for preparing this matter for debate. The proposals have an aim worthy of support: environmental diversity is something that is important to all of us. I would, however, like to raise two matters in this parliamentary report.
Firstly, in item eight the matter of forests is raised, mentioning the desire to see a bureaucratic, centralised monitoring system for the EU based on certification for forests and all living organisms in them. The use of forests in the Member States would be controlled by the EU by means of action plans. At this point we must remember that forestry matters in the EU are covered by the principle of subsidiarity and there is no cause to extend Brussels’ control in these matters unless there are special reasons for doing so. Furthermore, all those engaged in forestry matters agree that certification should work on a voluntary basis, and on no account should it be managed by the EU.
Secondly, in item 44 it is proposed that all support payments for agricultural production should be replaced with environment-based aid. We have to remember, however, the situation regarding world trade which we have today. If production aid were not paid there would no longer be any agriculture on the present scale in the EU in the future. How would things stand regarding biodiversity then? In certain regions of the EU, production aid is, relatively speaking, even more important than in central Europe. For example, in my country the major problems are not really connected with the state of the environment or biodiversity, but the fact that production must in general be supported, production costs being as high as they are. For farmers it is a waste of time to talk about additional environmental action, as all production in our country is in practice organic.
I propose that point 44 should be deleted from the text. The same goes for the last part of item 42, where agri-environmental action would be solely geared towards protecting endangered species. No self-respecting EU institution should record something like this in the resolutions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples