Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-116"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Framework directive on the sustainable use of pesticides - Thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides - The placing of plant protection products on the market (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071022.14.1-116"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-10-22-Speech-1-1172
lpv:speaker	lp:Dan Jørgensen2
lpv:spokenAs	member; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Socialdemokratiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 vice-chair; ENVI (2007-02-01--2009-07-13)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, there are some misunderstandings in some of the statements from our fellow members here today. Therefore, I am glad to be able to speak for a second time. There are three misunderstandings. The first concerns a reduction target: some fellow members are saying that this is simply not possible. There are differences between the countries and it is not possible to create a common European reduction target. No, this cannot be done! Nor is this what we are doing. What we are doing is saying that the common European reduction target should be 20%. However, this may of course mean 30% in some countries and 10% in others. The national reduction target will be established on the basis of national action plans. Therefore, it is a misunderstanding to fear this item. A key element is that we are taking account of the fact that a gram of one pesticide can sometimes be more dangerous than an entire kilogram of another pesticide. Therefore, we have introduced a treatment frequency index as part of this reduction obligation. I can well imagine that the Commission will also have something to say about this when you, Mr Dimas, are able to speak again in a little while. The second misunderstanding concerns the zones. There is a belief that if we do not have the zones it will almost be an insult to the internal market. No, on the contrary! By ending this foolish idea about zones and saying that we will gradually introduce mutual data sharing we are saying that the entire EU is a zone within which we share data. However, it is clear that we cannot talk about mutual obligatory recognition of pesticides simply because there are different geographical, climatic and environmental circumstances in each individual country. I think that almost everyone in this House who has spoken today will be in agreement on this point. The third fundamental misunderstanding is that it will destroy the competitiveness of agriculture. No! In Denmark we have reduced the use of pesticides by 50% since the 1980s without any effect on agricultural competitiveness. Pesticides are expensive to use and therefore, provided they are used correctly, the less they are used the better it is for competitiveness."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph