Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.8.3-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of the use of agricultural and non-agricultural pesticides has returned today, entering by way of sustainable development. I agree with some of the rapporteur’s observations. The contamination of surface water is a cause of concern from the point of view of human and animal health. It is necessary to check pesticide levels in fruit and vegetables, as well as in foodstuffs of animal origin. Consumers have the right to be informed. I also agree with her analysis of GMOs. There is nothing to indicate that widespread use of GMOs will result in a reduction in the use of pesticides.
Apart from these points of agreement, I should like to refer to several points on which our views differ. First of all, as regards taxation, doing away with the Member States’ option to apply reduced rates of VAT is not acceptable to us. Member States will in practice be deprived of one of their sovereign powers. Moreover, as two speakers have pointed out, reducing the use of pesticides by half over the next ten years will only be feasible if there are reliable and less harmful substitute products available which do not, in particular, give rise to additional production costs which are incompatible with a market which has already been rendered vulnerable. I am also opposed to a general ban on aerial spraying in certain remote and inaccessible areas, such as mountain regions, and in extreme climatic conditions which make the usual forms of protection ineffective. This form of spraying is often the only choice.
Finally, the point which raised more questions for our delegation than any other concerns Natura 2000. Classified plots of land are likely to see farming activity reduced. Unfortunately that is the idea. We should like to see this economic activity, and leisure activities too, such as food gathering, hunting, rambling, fishing and mountaineering, which existed before site classification, being allowed to continue, and we want to avoid a situation in which over-protective measures might cause them to disappear in the long term. By refusing this possibility, Parliament would doom to failure the effective application of the protective measures. Today farming is the target, but tomorrow which other activities will be prohibited because they are held to be disruptive?
Finally, on behalf of the farming world which I am seeking to defend here, allow me to express my concern about the direction that the rapporteur has chosen to take."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples