Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.2.3-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, ladies and gentlemen, after so many debates on the banana problem, today we are a little closer to finding a satisfactory solution. I do not wish to get too excited, since we have been holding debates like this for eight years and we will hold more. Today, however, after the agreement reached in the Council, the Commission’s latest proposal is closer to the position often expressed by a majority in this Parliament over the years.
The Committee on Development and Cooperation, on whose behalf I am speaking, supports the Dary report, since it responds to the fundamental problems. It maintains the quota system which safeguards the sale of Community-produced bananas, it establishes a system of licences through the ‘first come, first served’ method, which conforms to the standard rules of world trade, and it provides for a non-automatic transfer to a tariff system which will require an assessment report on its possible impact.
This proposal has already been accepted by Ecuador, the world’s leading banana producer and one of the parties which has complained to the World Trade Organisation. Commissioner, it is true that we still have certain reservations and differences. We in Parliament are asking for a transitional period of ten years whereas the Commission proposes six; we are asking for a tariff of “a minimum of EUR 300” whereas the Commission says “a maximum of EUR 300”. These are differences, it is true, but now we are talking a similar language, which is radically different to the one we have used for years.
Commissioner Fischler, I am glad that you have increased your flow of information. Mr Schwaiger said during the previous debate that you should have information which further supplements all the different points of view on the problem. You recently visited the Azores and you have recently been in the Canary Islands and you undoubtedly have a fuller view of the problem, which is still very complex. For example, we feel bound to express our concern about banana production in certain ACP countries, in the small producing countries of the Caribbean and in certain countries of Western Africa, which have traditionally been suppliers to the banana market and to whom we have commitments that we cannot ignore.
Hurricane Mitch in Central America has unfortunately given us an example of what we find unacceptable. In certain countries – Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala – Mitch destroyed the banana plantations. Certain multinational companies, instead of contributing to the recovery of economic activity there, moved their business to other less affected areas and even to other countries, ignoring their obligations to thousands, or tens of thousands, of families and farmers who were on a wage of 10 dollars. This is not the model of development that we Europeans want to see.
Some Members have expressed their concern about the negative consequences suffered by certain sectors, especially in the United Kingdom, as a result of the devious measures applied by the United States, which I believe do not conform to the GATT agreements. We believe that the best way to help these companies is to find a way to resolve the conflict as soon as possible. Therefore, we do not believe it is a good idea to postpone this debate, as certain people have suggested over recent weeks.
We have achieved a complex and delicate balance on this issue. The Dary report was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and also received the unanimous support of the committee on whose behalf I am speaking. I believe that the amendment tabled at the last minute by Mr Vatanen does nothing to help this issue, and I would ask him, if he is listening, to consider the possibility of withdrawing it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples