Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-06-Speech-3-452"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050706.33.3-452"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"First of all, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, Mr Davies: I stand by what I said to you at our very useful and interesting meeting. I will return in September with proposals and with a new attempt. Like you, I find it regrettable that implementation is being delayed. We have already debated this problem at length. Nevertheless, I have been doing some investigating: in its FLEGT action plan, the European Union sets out its commitment to analyse the available options for supplementary measures, in particular the feasibility of legislation to monitor imports of illegally logged timber into the European Union. The progress of this work has been monitored very closely by Parliament, which has invited the Commission to propose legislation of this kind.
Now, let us be quite clear: the analysis of these options has been delayed, but it is now in progress. It is true that we also lack the human resources to deal with this dossier, particularly given that it is extremely difficult, but we are rather short. A further reason for the delay, which is not so easy to remedy, is that this analysis remains a delicate and somewhat controversial subject between the various services of the Commission, which have expressed significantly divergent opinions on the best way to proceed. I am trying to bring some order to all of this, so that we have a clearer picture.
I can tell you that the Commission is committed to reviewing and analysing the feasibility of additional legislation to support the FLEGT action plan. I will attempt to relaunch this discussion. I have already said that this work was held up by delays connected with confirmation of the active participation of the Member States - you are clearly aware of this, as you have spoken of it yourself - and by our decision to concentrate our scarce resources on implementing the voluntary approach set out in the action plan. The evaluation is in progress and is taking place in close collaboration with the Member States, since many of the potential measures are matters of national competence. The options evaluated include public procurement policy, money laundering, stolen goods and anti-corruption legislation, in addition to the feasibility and practical aspects of the new legislation on monitoring imports of illegally logged timber. I hope that this work will be completed during the course of 2005.
Mrs Hall, you said that we should quite simply ban illegal timber. I agree with you, but we also need to find a system that will enable us to check that legal timber is not illegal timber. In other sectors triangular trade does exist. I have even requested a report from the Joint Research Centre in Ispra on this subject. I assume that you are familiar with the problem. You should be aware that, during a very short mandate as Commissioner for Research, I went to that Joint Research Centre, where I saw some very interesting things: for example, that is where they produce the satellite maps that can show, virtually down to the nearest square metre, the crimes that are being committed under the gaze of this satellite; they also show reforestation, the quantity of trees lost, and so on. These are the kinds of technical and technological resources that we should perhaps consider implementing in order to address your concerns. There should not be any problems within the Commission, but I will need to convince a number of Member States to agree to go down that path and to use the means at our disposal, in order to be more coercive.
As regards the legal base, the Commission considers that the voluntary import licensing system should be implemented on the basis of Article 133 of the Treaty, on commercial policy. Parliament and certain Member States do not share this view and suggest that Article 175 of the Treaty, on the environment, would be a more appropriate legal base. Why has the Commission retained Article 133, or commercial policy, as the legal base for the regulation establishing a voluntary licensing scheme for imports of timber? The Commission believes that this legal base is the most appropriate, inasmuch as the regulation seeks only to regulate trade in timber products between the European Union and the partner countries. Personally, I think the Commission is right; I also believe that Article 133 is the most appropriate. However, do not see this as a religious war. The most important thing is to be aware of your legitimate concerns - which I fully share - that you expressed to me during our meeting.
This matter is therefore not closed; I promise you that I will bring all my leadership to bear on it. Obviously, I cannot promise you that I will succeed, but I will do all I can to move this matter on in the direction that you want, as I share your concerns in this regard. I will ask the Research Centre to consider what techniques might be used, for example to do what you say, because that would be a big step forward. The establishment of some kind of certificate of origin would in itself constitute major progress. We will still need to convince the Member States, but I promise you that I will return in September with some ideas on the issue. I cannot promise you any more than that at the moment, but things are moving and I will also try - although this is not entirely in my hands - to strengthen the taskforce responsible for this matter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples