Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-15-Speech-3-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060215.16.3-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the figures that characterise forest structure in the 15 countries of the old European Union in terms of forest cover are very good and amount to 35% of the total land area, with a significant majority in the hands of 15 million private owners. However, with forests divided to this extent among private owners, the question arises as to how economies of scale can be achieved in forest management.
I am not against private forest ownership. In my home country, Poland, the majority of forests are state-owned, the exact figure being 82%, with 2% of this accounted for by national parks. By comparison with other EU countries, the structure of our forests is much richer and older. The Polish forestry model is efficient and effective.
State-owned forests are a self-financing, profit-making institution. However, what European Union aid for forests in Central Europe provides is substantial funding to train people who plant trees on their own private land, and funding for payments. Support is also needed for areas that are not exploited commercially, national parks and reserves. The infrastructure linked to forestry needs modernisation.
I call on the Commission and Parliament to draw on the experience of forest management in Poland. Western Europe can learn from experience too. Not everything that is private is always best. Non-private forests also need support.
The wealth of Polish forests benefits society across the entire European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples