Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-303"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.13.3-303"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, tomorrow Parliament is to vote on the proposal for reform in the processed fruit and vegetable sector. I believe this reform is necessary, but in its proposal the European Commission is not moving in exactly the right direction.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur and I applaud the teamwork we have achieved. I believe this has been one of the proposals most based on give and take and finding a balance that we have seen in this Parliament.
The objective of promoting supply pooling must be met by encouraging producer organisations. Last year, as Mr Jové Peres has said, only 40% of production was marketed through producer associations. Therefore, the amendments approved by the Agriculture Committee and Rural Development, under which up to 50% of the costs of creation and operation can be cofinanced under the EAGGF guarantee for the first five years, answer a need, Commissioner, as does covering the financial aid of 3 to 4.5%, as approved by the Agriculture Committee, of the produce marketed by each producer organisation.
We are not happy with the thresholds proposed by the European Commission, since they should be adjusted in accordance with market fluctuations. Therefore the approved amendments proposed by the rapporteur on this matter enjoy our full approval.
The list of products should be extended to include those that may be vulnerable to major falls in prices due to the weather or for cyclical reasons. The Commission’s proposal to reduce the maximum citrus-fruit withdrawal ceiling from 10% to 5% is unjustified and I believe it should not be upheld.
Certain instruments for regulating the market in emergency crisis situations must be introduced to act as a safety net, for example, by exceeding the withdrawal ceiling by about 10% in the event of serious crises.
There is a gap in the area of labelling. The legislation in force on this issue needs to be changed so that the consumer may be kept fully informed and know whether the product has been made from fresh fruit or not. This is a request and complaint that consumers are always making.
I support the amendments affecting tomatoes, pears, peaches, cherries, apricots and asparagus, which are of major regional importance and should receive a fixed amount of aid per hectare to improve their competitiveness.
With regard to dry fruit and nuts, especially hazelnuts, the request to extend the period of aid given to producer organisations that have implemented their improvement plans is still valid, as are the measures specific to this sector which are due to expire in the next round even though there has been no change in their circumstances.
The analysis of the reforms, which the Agriculture Committee and Rural Development has so insistently called for, should be submitted by 30 June 2001 so that we can see how the sector has been performing. These reforms mean a budget increase, but within the line approved at the Berlin European Summit. The Commission should do its sums again in view of the fact that this ceiling is not exceeded. The difference between the Commission’s proposals and the European Parliament’s is EUR 151. Budget neutrality, Commissioner, does not mean that expenditure under the proposal does not exceed what is currently spent but rather that it stays within what was agreed at the Berlin European Summit."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples