Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010705.4.4-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Even though this resolution is a generalisation, we agree with it in principle and shall vote in favour of it because it expresses the view that support for locust beans and nuts, which come under fruit and vegetables, should be reinforced.
However, we must register our disagreement with the items at which the resolution becomes more specific.
The first point on which we disagree concerns producer organisations, which we oppose because they undermine cooperatives. Even where cooperatives are converted into producer organisations, numerous problems arise because cooperatives in Greece are multisectoral, as are farmers, while producer organisations deal with one specific product. As a result, several producer organisations end up working within the same cooperative and, if they work properly, that is, in accordance with the relevant regulation then, in practice, the cooperative is fragmented into as many parts as there are products handled by it. The problem could have been resolved if Member States had been given the right to recognise these farmers' organisations and if the regulations had referred to cooperatives and producer organisations as being equivalent. This is not the case, however, and the European Union only recognises producer organisations with an anti-democratic legislative framework as producer groups.
The second point concerns the emphasis in the resolution on the operational programmes of producer organisations. We do not disagree with these programmes, we just consider them to be of secondary or tertiary importance. When we talk of more efficient support for products, we mean better intervention prices, more subsidies and protection from mass imports. The operational programme limiting environmental pollution is good but it alone will not improve income support for farmers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples