Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-13-Speech-4-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030213.4.4-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We are opposed to the Forest Focus regulation, as we are to the Redondo report, and for the following reasons.
First of all, there is the absence of agreement between those active in this field – foresters, paper-makers etc – who have unanimously rejected the European Commission’s proposal.
Secondly, the change of legal basis causes us concern. Forests will no longer come under the heading of agriculture but will become a new component of environmental policy. Are we heading towards a CEP – Common Environmental Policy – in order better to destroy the CAP?
The definition of ‘forest’ at Community level is unrealistic, being too restrictive in terms of surface area when it talks about ‘tree crown cover … of more than 10 per cent and area of more than 0.5 ha’. Practically every grove of trees would fall within the scope of the regulation.
Given the diversity of terrain and of geographical and climatic conditions in the EU, there is, moreover, no reason for incorporating forests into the EU’s common policies.
The Commission wants to turn the Forest Focus programme into a regulation complementing the ‘Birds’ and ‘Habitats’ directives, something we find unacceptable given the difficulties in applying and funding these two directives.
Finally, the Commission forgets the primary function of forests in rural areas: that of economic development."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples