Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.14.1-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I thank the speakers in tonight’s sitting for their positive remarks. Permit me to set out briefly the Commission’s views on certain important issues that have been raised.
Firstly, the Commission is convinced that mandatory adherence to common general rules on integrated pest management by professional pesticide users is a fundamental measure to reduce dependence on pesticides. It is of important environmental benefit throughout the EU and will contribute to the development of a sustainable and competitive agriculture sector. I cannot, therefore, accept the elimination under Amendment 86 of this exceptionally important measure contained in the European Commission’s proposal.
Secondly, the European Commission agrees to take measures to protect populations living close to fields where aerial spraying is carried out. Nevertheless, it considers that a complete ban on the use of pesticides in so-called ‘sensitive’ areas is disproportionate. We must leave some discretion to Member States and local authorities. If this it ever necessary, and in exceptional, rare cases, when only the use of pesticides are effective, they must be allowed to deal with risks to human health or biodiversity.
Thirdly, although the Commission has committed itself to looking into extending the directive’s scope of application to biocides, such a decision requires careful study, as well as the implementation of certain aspects of the directive on pesticides. When more data is made available to us through the revision programme envisaged in the directive on biocides, we will be able better to deal with the use of biocides.
Fourthly, the Commission cannot support the addition of a reference to Article 152(4) of the Treaty, since the proposed directive is clearly focused on environmental protection, which already includes public health issues.
Fifthly, although the imposition of taxes and contributions complies with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, there is no effective system at the moment for differentiating tax rates according to the risk posed by each pesticide. For this reason the Commission prefers that taxes and contributions should be imposed at Community level not at the present stage but until such a time as a study has been carried out into the issue.
Madam President, the Commission can accept 121 amendments of the 166 that were tabled; of these it can accept 25 fully and 96 in principle or in part. I am lodging with Parliament’s secretariat a full list of the Commission’s positions on the amendments.
Let me once again to thank all those who have contributed to this evening’s debate and in particular the rapporteurs for their work. Thank you for your attention.
Let me begin with the thematic strategy and, in particular, with the points not covered by the directive.
First of all, I am pleased that the report supports the thematic strategy for the sustainable use of pesticides. The proposal to bring in new legislation to deal with the risky of pesticide use is particularly good.
I agree with how important more research is into the impact of the combined and cumulative use of pesticides on health. In my opinion, the principle of substitution is vital; it removes the most hazardous substances from the market and replaces them with safer alternative solutions, some of which are non-chemical.
Finally, the Belohorská report adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety puts forward certain additional measures which are especially positive.
Let me now turn specifically to the framework directive. Many of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament make useful clarifications and can be accepted. Other amendments, however, are liable to bring about undesired results. I should like first of all to comment on the basic amendments which the Commission can fully accept in principle or in part.
The Commission partially accepts the proposal that Member States set up individual targets in their own national action plans for the restriction of the use of the most hazardous pesticides. Indeed, setting up such targets is consistent with the directive’s general aim to reduce the risk of using pesticides. Laying down an overall, permanent target for the reduction of pesticide use at EU level, however, in addition to national targets, is not necessary and is therefore not endorsed by the Commission. In fact, the overall reduction of the quantity of pesticides does not necessarily entail a corresponding reduction in risk: the level of risk varies from one substance to another. Thus action to limit risk must focus, in the main, on the most harmful substances.
The Commission can in principle accept the laying down of a minimum width for the buffer zones to be created in fields located next to water courses, because this will bring additional environmental gains. Imposing a limit of 10 metres, however, indiscriminately and in all cases, does not seem appropriate. The Commission would prefer Member States to have a margin of flexibility and set the appropriate width for buffer zones in line with their own geographical features.
The Commission can also accept certain useful clarifications on other issues, such as technical training and certification. There are, however, amendments which the Commission cannot endorse."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples