Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991201.15.3-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and of course its rapporteur, Mr Pesälä, for the very positive approach adopted towards the Commission proposal; and the Commission appreciates the broad acceptance of its proposal.
The present proposal aims to update the current legislation on the marketing of forest reproductive material to take account of the accession of new Member States since 1975, the internal market and scientific advances. Twenty-two amendments have been proposed. I can accept the large majority of them as they stand or with minor modification in respect of their drafting or presentation. The Commission can accept the Amendment No 23 proposed now by Mr Pesälä. I would like to comment on the four amendments which the Commission cannot accept.
Firstly, I will comment on Amendment No 4. According to the proposed amendment, an explicit reference to the principle of subsidiarity should be inserted within the recitals. The Commission is not in favour. The proposal is based on Article 37 of the Treaty, and therefore falls within the exclusive competence of the Community. However, the Commission proposal has fully recognised the specificity of the conditions of certain Member States or certain parts thereof and the text explicitly reflects this position.
Then we come to Amendment No 7. The Commission provides in the first part of Article 5(2)b that the procedures ensuring the environmental risk assessment and other relevant elements should be equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 90/220. They will be introduced in a future regulation. According to the proposed amendment, the generic expression of the relevant elements should be replaced with a positive list of elements. The Commission feels that this is inappropriate taking into account that any exhaustive list would limit unnecessarily the scope of the provision. Insofar as the second part of the amendment is concerned, I can agree to the addition of a reference to the European Parliament in the future regulation.
Amendment No 10: according to the proposed amendment, an official certificate of origin should accompany each consignment of forest reproductive material during marketing. The Commission agrees with the aim to ensure that trade flow should be controlled but the introduction of such a certificate would represent an unnecessary burden for trade. According to the Commission, it would be preferable to introduce appropriate amendments in respect of the existing master certificate.
Finally Amendment No 17: according to the proposed amendment, Member States shall specify the requirements their reproductive material should meet in order to be considered well adapted to particular climatic conditions or exposed upland situations. The Commission is in favour of justified derogations when they are well defined in respect of their content, for example, for a Community region with specific climatic conditions and in respect of the procedures to be followed. The Commission feels that the proposed amendment is too broadly based and introduces the possibility for Member States to unilaterally prohibit the marketing of forest reproductive material.
Those are my comments, and I would like to thank you for your attention and thank once again the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples