Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.14.1-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that a number of Member States have already initiated measures to reduce pesticide-related risks, but trends in pesticide use differ from one country to another. For example, certain substances, the use of which is banned in some Member States, are none the less on sale in those states because their use is permitted in other states. There is a clear need to harmonise the rules here in order to ensure that the same conditions apply throughout the Union. The ALDE Group advocates strict control of pesticides, whilst recognising that their use is both a necessity and a reality.
We have a number of amendments that are intended to make the text more easily applicable, while sticking to the principle that safer or non-chemical alternatives should be encouraged. My group is keen to focus the volume-reduction targets on dangerous substances. We co-signed an amendment to Article 4 on national action plans, setting as the EU-wide target a 20% reduction in frequency of application within 10 years and 50% rates of reduction for dangerous substances by 2013.
Some may think it paradoxical that my group has tabled a further amendment, also to Article 4, offering Member States the option of an approach based on risk reduction. This is, in fact, a more realistic approach but the calculations are more difficult than they are with volume reduction. We thought it was important to put forward this amendment because the question is one that we would wish to see addressed in the interinstitutional discussions after the vote at first reading.
I should now like to consider a few specific points. For the protection of watercourses it would seem more logical to take measures tailored to the geological environment, rather than fixing a minimum buffer-zone area. It is legitimate to seek to protect specific living spaces such as parks, children’s playgrounds and school areas because the use of pesticides in proximity to such areas should be restricted to the minimum necessary, or indeed be prohibited, and non-chemical methods should be prioritised.
On the fraught question of aerial spraying, the European Commission’s proposal – for a ban in principal with exceptions that must be justified – made a lot of sense. The text from the Committee on the Environment is, however, acceptable. Whilst I understand the need to notify the public of pesticide spraying, I think it has to be left to the Member States to determine the nature and extent of the notification and the means of giving it. We are dealing here with so many different types of terrain and so many different approaches that any attempt to standardise seems unrealistic.
The ALDE Group is thus seeking to achieve a balance, the essence of which is that no single party, whether user or manufacturer, should be penalised but rather that rigorous and consistent legislation should be introduced: allowing pesticide users to protect their crops; allowing manufacturers to sell products that will gradually become less harmful; and allowing consumers not only to eat safe food but also to live in a safe environment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples