Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.8.2-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first on the question of grasslands, grassland premiums or, first and foremost, general permission to use set-aside areas. I think that we need to tread somewhat carefully here. We must not forget that organic farms by definition produce much less and that the organic farming system automatically has a built-in brake on production so to speak.
If we generally abandon the brake on production in the cereals sector, then we no longer meet the requirements for a bluebox measure. Which is why I think we need to tread carefully. As far as introducing a general grassland premium in lieu of a beef premium is concerned, we discussed this in connection with Agenda 2000. I have no objection in principle here, but there is a feasibility problem, because you must admit one thing: a meadow in Schleswig-Holstein cannot be treated in the same way as a hectare of meadow in northern Finland or a meadow in southern Portugal. There are huge differences in yield, quality and requirements. But Europe does not have a system for evaluating these differences, which is why we need to consider this question at greater length. But, as I said, I have no objection in principle, just a feasibility problem.
As far as the question of disposal costs is concerned, the fact is that very different systems are currently being applied here. In some Member States it is done through tax measures, in other Member States the costs are simply absorbed by the national budget and in others still the farmers, or at least the agricultural sector, is left to pick up the tab.
Since these are national measures, national assistance rules apply. And we are doing that, we have accepted that. However, not all Member States have sent in their replies as requested, not by a long chalk. But, hopefully, we should be in a position by the next Council to formulate a more accurate overview. However, and I must stress this, a certain self-discrimination by the Member States within the framework of government aid cannot be prohibited under Community law. That is also a fact of life. But I agree with you, that it should not be allowed to go too far as, otherwise, we really shall create two types of farmholding or two types of farmer in Europe.
In reply to the question on certified products: the certification of products is set out in the provisions which we introduced on 1 September last year. It was agreed, with Parliament's consent, that this would be done in two stages. The first stage is in force and the second will follow on 1 January next year. However, this second stage must already be complied with for any meat which enters storage. Because if we do not insist on this now, we will not be able to remove this meat from storage after 1 January 2002 because it will no longer meet labelling requirements.
Then there is also national certification. This national certification, which is carried out by CHA in Germany or SOPEXA in France, is subject to a notification requirement. In other words, these certifications must be notified. Then there is also private certification. These private certifications are governed solely by the principle of truth. This means that the truth must be told about what is written on the outside of a product.
With products involving government aid, certain rules must be respected. We are currently reforming this system, because we quite clearly take the view that the fact that a product comes from a particular region is no automatic guarantee of quality and that quality has to be defined. Only if the quality is right and only if it is checked can we talk of a proper quality label. But we have difficulties here – I freely admit – with combinations of quality and origin, when it is suggested that the quality automatically goes up if a specific product comes from a specific region.
As far as calves' milk is concerned – and I assume that you are basically referring to milk replacer here – the relevant adaptations are being prepared. However, they come within the remit of my colleague Commissioner Byrne. As far as the implementation of the White Paper on food security is concerned, suitable proposals will also be forthcoming here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples