Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-15-Speech-4-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010215.2.4-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by expressing my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Korakas, and to the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for the report and for their thorough examination of the Commission’s proposal. Aid per hectare for cotton is three to four times higher than for other crops; that certainly has to be considered whenever this whole issue is discussed. In the view of the Commission, this special effort by the Community, in particular the extra financial input, is only warranted by the economic and, more importantly, the social significance attached to cotton in some regions of the Community.
So there remains Amendment No 2, which is essentially intended to correct a mistake in the Spanish text. But, in point of fact, neither a translation problem nor an error has occurred here, because the expression
is meant to refer to the target price, not to the actual market price.
I very much regret that, on this occasion, the Commission cannot accept the committee’s amendments, but I trust I have fully explained the reasons for this.
In the last few years, however, the area of land that is planted with cotton has increased considerably, and yields per hectare have also risen sharply. This poses new risks, both to the budget and to the environment, for we must not forget that cotton planting is a very intensive form of crop farming and involves the highly concentrated use of fertilisers and pesticides. The main aim of the Commission’s proposal, therefore, is to ensure that an excessive increase in production levels is accompanied by an accelerated reduction of the minimum price levels we set.
Adoption of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, however, would lead to a substantial increase in the size of the budget for cotton production. This, in turn, would mean an increase rather than a decrease in production incentives, which would also tend to undermine the environmental safeguards.
To make it clear what is at stake here, let me tell you that, even if we assume stable yields and an average market price, the additional cost of the committee’s amendments would be in the order of EUR 650 million a year. This corresponds to an 85% increase in the budget. In view of the current budgetary situation, I certainly could not comply with such a request.
As for the individual amendments, Nos 1, 3, 4 and 9 to 13 seek to increase prices by 10% and the national guaranteed quantities by 50%. Apart from sending costs soaring, these measures could lead to a 60% increase in production, amounting to an additional output of 900 000 tonnes, with the consequences I have just described. Amendments Nos 5 and 14 propose that the minimum price be indexed on the basis of the quality of unginned cotton; the price scale would be adopted by the Member States if the relevant professional organisations could not reach agreement on a price scale.
We have had some apposite experience of such ideas in the past. It emerged very clearly that it is simply impossible to establish and administer such a system centrally, because there are quite simply far too many factors that influence the quality of raw cotton. For that reason, we must stand by our view that this question should continue to be decided by the interested parties, in other words, between the purchasers and suppliers of raw cotton.
We do, however, propose the introduction of a criterion, namely conformity with the weighted average of world market prices for cotton fibres. This will give us a framework that will make it easier to negotiate future agreements.
Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 16 to 19 relate to rules governing the formulation of official statutes by cotton producers’ organisations and specifying the activities of such organisations for which Community aid is payable. This is intended to apply to environmental measures in particular. I must draw your attention to the fact that such a regime already exists and is set forth in Regulation (EEC) No 389/1982. Moreover, the creation of producers’ organisations has been financed by the Community for the past ten years. As is customary in other sectors, these bodies are expected to meet their running costs from the funds allocated to the common organisation of the market and from environmental aid.
We cannot accept these amendments, because they would mean the existence of two different sets of rules for producers’ organisations as well as two different funding systems. If we also take account of the increased production that would result from the requested rise in the national guaranteed quantities, this alone could entail annual costs in the region of EUR 80 million. As far as the environment is concerned, Amendments Nos 6, 15 and 20 seek wide scope for the Member States to amend the common organisation of the market, not only on the basis of environmental considerations but also, and above all, for economic and social reasons. This is really unacceptable because it puts the very existence of the environmental safeguards in jeopardy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"precio de objetivo"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples