Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-302"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.13.3-302"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, the Commission has presented a proposal which, under the semblance of a technical adjustment, conceals new budget restrictions for a sector itself already discriminated against within the common agricultural policy.
In recent years, fluctuations in the exchange rate between the euro and the dollar and other circumstances have brought the level of aid down to half the level it was at four years ago. The Commission’s proposal, however, consists in stabilising aid at the reduced level and granting aid directly to producer organisations, with which the minimum price regime will disappear.
Before the end of the year, the Commission is to submit a report on the operation of the COM on fruit and vegetables, possibly supplementing it with new proposals for reform. The Commission justifies the proposal we are now examining on the grounds of urgency. Now, without questioning the urgent nature of the issues dealt with by the Commission, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has identified other urgent issues and also upholds different figures from those in the Commission’s proposal. One of the urgent priorities for the Agriculture Committee is the strengthening of producer organisations.
The problem is that, after the 1996 reform of the COM, the producer organisations became its main instrument. Currently, however, only 40% of fruit and vegetable production is pooled within producer organisations. A COM that only covers 40% of production does not deserve the name. Therefore, if there is any urgency, it lies in encouraging the pooling of supply within producer groups. Since this is an exception in the common agricultural policy and the producers themselves have to cofinance the operational funds, an increase in Community funding is clearly the most obvious instrument for achieving this objective. The Agriculture Committee has therefore proposed an increase in the percentage of Community financing for certain joint schemes involving several producer organisations under certain conditions, especially in the regions most dependent on fruit and vegetable production, or for associations or mergers of producer organisations.
The differences in the figures between the Commission’s proposal and that of the Agriculture Committee, which was, in fact, passed almost unanimously, basically centre on aid levels and processing thresholds. The aid requested by the Agriculture Committee may seem excessively high, but we must not allow ourselves to be deceived. What is happening is that the aid levels proposed by the Commission are excessively low and are intended to convert a temporary situation into something permanent, thus eroding farmers’ incomes. This temporary situation has been brought about by fluctuations in the exchange rate between the euro and the dollar and particular events on the markets. The Agriculture Committee’s line is in fact limited to restoring pre-1996 aid levels.
Furthermore, on the subject of aid, the disappearance of the minimum price and paying aid directly through producer organisations may cause problems, particularly in the main fruit and vegetable producing countries. A reasonable level of aid would allow producers’ incomes to be maintained in a particularly difficult situation. To avoid absurd situations of systematic penalisation, the Agriculture Committee has decided to propose setting it at the level of what was produced in recent years. In this way we hope to tailor the aid to the production structure and the ability of the market to absorb the supply, without running the risk of creating surpluses.
One may ask how the amendments will be financed. You see, fruit and vegetables currently receive EUR 445 million less than the ceiling set in the Financial Perspective. It is true that budget neutrality must be respected, but we have to agree on what that means. In my view, budget neutrality consists in keeping within the limits set when the Financial Perspective was adopted. The Commission, however, intends to reduce spending to below the all-time minimum.
I believe that discussion should focus essentially on how to achieve the objectives allocated to the COM and thereafter on establishing budget commitments. It often seems that less is demanded of institutions if they restrict themselves to proposing budget savings. Our main concern should be to improve the effectiveness of the instruments that we have all built up together. Without a budget there can be no building of Europe, and the budget for the fruit and vegetable sector symbolises and reflects many of the main social and territorial imbalances in the common policy.
I should like to end by thanking my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee. Their understanding and efforts were of great help in reaching a final agreement, which enabled me to draw up this frankly rather difficult report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples