Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-339"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.11.3-339"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first I should like to thank the rapporteurs on behalf of the Commission for their excellent work. The area which we are discussing is not important just for the regions; it is also a very important area for the European budget. After all, this year's budget includes EUR 2.4 billion for the olive oil sector. In this respect, it is also an extremely important area when it comes to audits by the European Court of Auditors.
As regards Amendment No 37, concerning the basic ban on the planting of additional olive groves, the Commission takes the view that conversions and the legal consequences with respect to land use would give rise to huge problems.
Numerous provisions on control measures have already been issued during the course of the year. The outstanding problems are connected with marketing structures. No decisive progress can be made until we introduce the geographical information system which the Commission has suggested as the basis on which aid should be granted from 2003 onwards. Most of the substance of the amendments proposed here has already been taken into account in the Commission's regulations.
Amendments Nos 7, 11 and 14 call for greater involvement of the Commission and additional research.
But the Commission is already working closely with the Member States on controls without, however, disregarding the fact that they have the final say. Research programmes have already been funded under the general procedure in the areas which you mention.
Amendments Nos 8, 10, 22, 23, 24 and 36 relate to improved monitoring of mills, the main concern being to use electronic data transmission. The relevant Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 already provides a legal basis for priority monitoring of mills. As a result, at least 30% of mills must be controlled
. In addition, the mills must send in data on their stock accounts at the end of every month. These data have already been compared with the information available on olive oil production and marketing. The proposal for a computerised system for monitoring on a day-to-day basis is being examined. If it proves to be sensible and practicable, the Commission could issue the corresponding regulation. However, we must bear in mind that, unfortunately, the IT tools for the Member States for which provision has been made are still not fully ready for use.
As far as classification and labelling are concerned, as addressed in Amendments Nos 16, 18 and 45, together with Amendments Nos 19 and 35, we have taken note of your proposals, especially the call for the place where the olives were grown to be taken as the place of origin. However, as these questions come under the Commission's jurisdiction, the Commission cannot agree to their being included in the basic Council regulation.
Amendments Nos 33 and 34 call for the specific reference to olive oil as an ingredient to be banned on food labels. These proposals are questionable from a commercial point of view and the Commission therefore takes the view that food labelling should comply with Directive 2000/13 (EC).
Obviously, the Commission is aware of the fact that the olive oil sector is calling for a ban on the marketing of mixtures of olive oils and other fats. However, the Commission cannot ban healthy, properly labelled products for which there is a demand simply to protect sales of another product. We therefore reject Amendments Nos 17, 20 and 32.
However, the Commission will make sure that suitable labelling requirements are drafted. It goes without saying that olive oil sold under one of the four compulsory names is still pure olive oil and has all the qualities which make it such.
Amendment No 47 suggests that the term “natural” should be used instead of the term “crude” and Amendment No 48 adds the term “ordinary olive oil” to the term “standard olive oil”. The Commission is unable to accept this at the moment because it prefers to find terms which correspond more closely to the perceptions of the sector as a whole. The Commission will, however, include your suggestions in subsequent Council discussions.
Mr Casaca has dealt with the special report by the Court of Auditors. Mr Jové Peres has led the debate on the Commission proposal. Strictly speaking, these two areas are totally separate because the special report by the Court of Auditors addresses the measures and aid applied over a three-year transitional period before the Council decision in 1998, whereas the Commission proposal relates to measures to be taken from November 2001 onwards.
Under Amendment No 21, the new classification would enter into force on 1 November 2002, i.e. a year before the date proposed by the Commission. As it will be impossible to complete the necessary implementing measures, market adjustments and international negotiations by then, the Commission cannot agree to this proposal.
Finally, as far as organisations of market operators are concerned, the Commission agrees to Amendment No 12 with its more general wording of the objectives, Amendment No 25 proposing that table olives be included in current provisions for quality improvement programmes and Amendment No 30 subject to legal examination and with the words “for recognised interbranch organisations”. The very specific Amendment No 13 could be helpful for measures promoted in environmental programmes, but not for the basic regulation of the sector.
As regards measures for which organisations of market operators can claim a grant, the Commission is prepared to examine the inclusion of table olives and the assurance of origin. However, the details of possible measures must be decided by the Commission.
The various methods for promoting sales must stay within the harmonised framework which applies to all agricultural products, which is why I have to reject Amendments Nos 39, 40 and 43. If an organisation of market operators is to be licensed, it must meet certain criteria which the Commission has yet to decide.
The restructuring of the olive oil sector was less comprehensive than in other sectors and new discussions and conditions therefore appear to be needed. The Commission has taken note of your request that organisations of producers and branch organisations be given priority. However, there seems to be little point at present in restricting measures which could help to improve the quality and hence sales of olive oil.
Numerous proposed amendments call for new regulations on organisations of market operators to enter into force as quickly as possible. This is certainly a good idea. However, we need a good two years to work out detailed regulations for the sector, for the organisations of market operators and their programmes, for checking programmes and for the Member States to check and licence organisations and design the monitoring tools needed. If we rush things, we will jeopardise the success of the quality strategy, which is why the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 15, 28, 29, 31, 38, 41, 42 and 44. However, I can confirm that the Commission does appreciate almost half the proposed amendments, even if it can only directly accept a few of them.
The remainder are mostly provisions for which the Commission itself is responsible and which will be drafted and amended over coming months, taking account of your recommendations.
First to Mr Casaca's report. The Commission can accept most of the points in Mr Casaca's motion for a resolution on the Court of Auditors' report. However, I should like to take a more detailed position on two points.
The Commission stated in the middle of last year, during its examination of the Court of Auditor's report, that improving the control system would, of course, be an important issue in the forthcoming reform of the common organisation of the market. Having examined this question closely, it is clear that radical reforms are needed if any decisive improvement is to be made. However, come what may, we need a geographical information system. As the right conditions will not all be in place for this sort of reform in 2001, the Commission suggested at the end of last year that, the decisive importance of the geographical information system notwithstanding, the reform should be postponed for two years. Besides, the Court of Auditors' proposals suggested other ways of making improvements here. After highly constructive talks with the Member States, these improvements were set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 648/2000.
This motion for a resolution expresses surprise at the fact that the Commission questions the reliability of the International Olive Oil Council's statistics. These doubts should come as no surprise. They were expressed at every Council meeting between 1995 and 1998. The Commission checked the data in question and clarified the details with the Member States on several occasions. The International Olive Oil Council's statistics for 1999 had to be revised for the purpose of standardising the data. This resulted in a 30% reduction in the stock calculated. It was also found that it was best to assume that national statistics had a margin of error of 10-12%.
I have the following to say about Mr Jové Peres's report: the report on the Commission proposal on the future common organisation of the market in olive oil is divided into two parts, dealing with two different subjects. The first part deals with postponing the decision on the reform in the olive oil sector for two years, until we have more accurate data and a more reliable control system, and the second part deals with the introduction of a new regulation on classifying olive oil and the quality strategy for olive oil.
The proposed amendments relate to four main issues: market measures and final reform, controls of the current regulation, classification and labelling of olive oil and the activities of the organisations of market operators. I should like to comment on all four.
As far as general market aspects are concerned, the Commission agrees with Amendment No 2 on the need to assess the results of the transitional period. The Commission acknowledges Amendments Nos 4, 5 and 9 but cannot formally accept them because they anticipate the decision on final reform, which the Commission wants to leave open at the moment.
I cannot accept Amendments Nos 3, 6 and 26 on automatic private storage arrangements even where the market situation has no need of them. Nor can the Commission endorse Amendments Nos 1 and 46 on aid for actual olive-residue oil production because this would complicate controls still further. Similarly, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 27 extending production refunds to products not in international competition with cheap olive oil."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples