Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020902.8.1-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, I will just take this opportunity to add a couple of comments on the issues that have emerged as the core of the debate. One of them has been addressed by a very large number of you, namely the issue of the European Union's dependence on imports from the USA. It must be clear to us that recent years have seen the production of soya transferred to a very large extent to South America. As we are dealing here with developing countries, this means that it is imports from developing countries that are ever increasing in recent years. If I include the financial year that has just begun, we can take it for granted that, for example, the number of Latin American exporters has all but doubled over the past two years.
Second comes the issue of GMOs. Our position is in tune both with the current legal provisions and with the latest Commission proposals on traceability and labelling. The only genetically modified soya bean to be marketed internationally is already approved in the EU; it is called
and is a genetic modification that we have approved in the EU under Directive 90/220. The only other genetically modified type of soya in the USA and worldwide contains a high percentage of oleic acid and is subject in the USA to strict trademark safeguards, being capable of being sold at very high prices by reason of its health-giving properties. The latest proposal on traceability and labelling does not provide for the labelling of any animal products produced using GM feedstuffs. It does, though, make provision for the traceability of feedingstuffs.
Another point of international relevance is the issue of the Blair House agreement. It has repeatedly been urged in this House that we should renegotiate the Blair House agreement. My response to that today is what it has always been, namely that, if we want to renegotiate the Blair House agreement, we have to be told what we are to offer the USA in order to get them to move away from their position. This has generally put a stop to debate, even in the Agriculture Council, nobody of course being prepared to accept other concessions at the expense of the concessions we have gained on soya beans. It has been suggested that we should deal with this issue as part of the mid-term-review debate; I believe this to be a good and important suggestion, and one that I am happy to take on board. This is something we should do, as we cannot but observe it happening in other contexts.
For example, we now have the debate about defining soya as a protein plant rather than as an oilseed as it was in the past, which would mean that soya could be looked at squarely when considering the protein plant rules, in which we envisage a specific premium for the production of protein plants. Of course, that also has an international dimension, but right now I am in favour of discussing the issue.
The other issue raised here, namely the set-aside problem, falls within the scope of the mid-term-review in precisely the same way. In that connection, land is still to lie fallow or be set aside on a rotating basis.
There are two reasons why our proposal on the mid-term review does not provide for land to lie fallow on a rotating basis. One is that we take the view that, in a decoupled system, leaving land fallow or setting it aside should primarily be determined by environmental considerations, although it may be, in view of the tragic events we have lived through over recent weeks in connection with various floods in Europe, that other new issues will come into play. I am very much aware that the rotation of fallow land is in itself an environmentally positive factor, as it makes it possible to make full use of the effectiveness of legumes as a forecrop.
Our second problem is that, if we continue to permit land to lie fallow or be set aside across the whole of the usable agricultural area, we will find it difficult to monitor. This issue will have to be discussed, as we must not lose sight of the possibility of simplifying our system of arable farming.
In this sense, the many suggestions made by Mr Stevenson in his report are of great value. As my fellow-Commissioner, Mr Byrne, has already, to my knowledge, answered certain questions, particularly those concerning fishmeal, that is something I do not need to do."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Round-up Ready"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples