Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-400"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.14.2-400"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened attentively to the contributions to this debate, and I should like to express my sincere thanks for what was certainly a very lively, if in some areas highly critical, discussion.
Finally, I can also accept Amendment No 20 and parts of Amendments Nos 17, 54, 55, 58 and 84 in the Daul report. I regret to say that I must reject all the remaining amendments in Mr Daul’s report.
Now a few remarks on the Lavarra report. One of the points you have made, Mr Lavarra, is that you do not believe it should be permissible to produce mixtures of olive oil and other vegetable oils. I must tell you, however, that this would lead to less olive oil being marketed in Europe. What matters in my view is that these mixed oils are appropriately labelled so that consumers are not misled.
In connection with proposals made in the Lavarra report, I should like to emphasise that the Commission has certain instruments which enable it to intervene if the market situation so demands, particularly with regard to imports. Some of the amendments proposed in this report relate to the automatic activation of the system of aid for private storage. Such a mechanism, however, would be contrary to the rationale and purpose of this system, which is supposed to enable us to cope with crises, and so I cannot endorse this type of amendment.
I do, however, agree with the idea that we should promote the quality of olive oil. On the other hand, I see no point in altering the harmonised provisions that were only recently adopted as part of the agreed quality strategy. Moreover, Community grants for quality programmes can be funded from the support programmes for rural areas.
On the question of controls, may I also point out that monitoring is not the task of the producer organisations but of the Member State and its public authorities.
And so to cotton. I agree that the current support regime for cotton is a highly specific scheme and that it is based in part on Acts of Accession. For this reason I can accept Amendment No 6, but at the same time I should like to mention that the Commission’s proposal adequately serves the purpose of supporting cotton production in those regions of the Community where cotton-growing is an important part of the agricultural structure. Most of the amendments would have resulted in a rise in cotton production, thereby increasing the overall budget by about EUR 50 million; this would be in breach of the Luxembourg Decision of June 2003, which prescribes that reforms must not entail an increase in the present budget. For this reason, I cannot consent to these amendments.
Amendments Nos 9, 37 and 70 are targeted against the transfer of funds to rural development. This transfer, however, is essential if the rural economies of cotton-producing regions are to be restructured and the necessary adjustments made. For this reason, I cannot accept these amendments either.
As far as producer associations are concerned, I believe that exclusion of the processing industry, with its own particular interests, is certainly not the best way to develop a quality policy for cotton. Accordingly, although I cannot accept the relevant amendments, I am prepared to give producer organisations a sufficiently active role in shaping the future of the cotton sector. I regret that I must reject all the remaining amendments in the Daul report that relate to cotton.
The main thrust of the amendments proposed for the tobacco sector is the preservation of the
whereas the Commission is aiming for profound change. I must remind the House that even the extension of the premium scheme for the years 2002 to 2004 was only possible because the Commission undertook to reform the sector. If we do not reform the tobacco sector, there will, as I have said, be no more premiums at all after 2004 – and that in a situation in which the market price covers an average of only 20% of the cost of tobacco production.
As Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf pointed out, the proposal offers a solution with no net budgetary impact. The difference is not that farmers are no longer receiving support but that they are no longer compelled to grow tobacco. That is the issue here. I might remind you that it was said at the Gothenburg Summit, in the context of discussions on sustainable development, that only healthy products are to be supported in the framework of Community policies.
Let me deal, in the light of the debate, with the tabled amendments, beginning with the multisectoral amendments and decoupling. The flexibility proposed in Amendments Nos 17 and 57, which would enable the Governments of the Member States to set any rate they wish in excess of 60% for decoupled payments in respect of olive oil, is something I can support in principle.
Amendment No 66 proposes a buy-back programme. I cannot endorse this amendment, because the Commission is convinced that there is no need for such a programme. Producers who decide to turn their backs on farming can transfer their grant entitlements under Article 46 of the Regulation on direct support schemes.
Another amendment to which I cannot agree is Amendment No 69, the effect of which would be the premature abolition of the contribution to the Community Tobacco Fund. These contributions serve to finance measures that are designed to foster public awareness of the harmful effects of tobacco consumption and should, for consistency’s sake, be preserved for as long as production-linked aid is still available to tobacco-growers.
For the financing of the restructuring process, it is absolutely imperative that budgetary funds be transferred from subheading 1a to 1b. This transfer will enable the Member States to take appropriate measures to facilitate the redevelopment of tobacco-growing regions as part of the programmes for the development of rural areas.
Amendments Nos 27 and 38 propose that monies generated by modulation be used to fund specific measures taken by the Member States in areas where tobacco production accounts for at least 20% of the gross marketable output of industrial crops. The Commission is convinced that there is no need for specific measures of this type, because the funds generated by modulation will be available to all sectors in the form of additional support for rural-development measures.
The Commission can approve Amendment No 62 but must reject all the other amendments relating to tobacco.
Let me turn, finally, to hops. The Daul report is consistent with the main principles of the proposal with regard to hops. Under the first part of Amendment No 42 and Amendments Nos 82 and 86, farmers who have discontinued hop production and have received grubbing-up aid during the reference period would still be entitled to the direct payment. During the same period, however, these farmers would have been able to grow crops other than those for which aid was payable. In the calculation of the reference amount, in other words, no account would be taken of the grubbing-up aid. Accordingly, the Commission is unable to endorse these amendments.
Amendments Nos 35 and 36 and the second part of Amendment No 42 relate to support for the activities of producer organisations. It will naturally be possible to form producer organisations in the future, and the Commission believes there must therefore be an appropriate means of ensuring that these organisations have access to funding.
Amendments Nos 1, 5, 10, 11, 45, 81 and 83 call for an increase in production-linked aid for cotton-growers to 80%, and Amendment No 44 links aid to an obligation relating to the cotton harvest. I regret that I must reject all of these amendments, because they are inconsistent with the aim of significantly loosening the link between production volumes and aid.
Amendments Nos 26, 63, 67, 68 and 85, which relate to tobacco, call for 70% of aid to tobacco producers to remain linked to production. This is in stark contrast with the tone of the debate conducted by the Heads of Government at the Gothenburg Summit. For this reason I must uphold the Commission’s original proposal, which provides for the inclusion of all tobacco aid in the single-payment scheme.
Some amendments also call for an option to postpone the reforms in respect of olive oil, cotton and tobacco – these are Amendments Nos 7, 8, 24, 43, 74, 76, 77, 79 and 80. The Commission, however, wishes to press ahead with the reform of these sectors as quickly as possible, so it cannot agree to these amendments.
Let me now move on to the individual sectors, beginning with olive oil. You have made a number of interesting suggestions here, which I believe are well worth examining, but I should find it difficult to agree to them in the proposed form. One such example is the proposal in Amendment No 58 that Member States be given the option of regionalising their national ceilings, which can certainly be considered. Care must be taken to ensure, however, that such an option does not result in excessive deviations from the average aid payments made to a region during the reference period.
I also believe that the suggestions made in Amendment No 84 are interesting. This amendment seeks to extend the reference period for individual holdings in order to ascertain the amount of the single payment and eligibility for aid in cases where the olive groves had not yet started producing during the reference period. This must not, however, lead to an increase in the total amount of support paid to olive-growers by each Member State.
I can accept the proposal in this amendment that the ceiling for fully decoupled payments be raised to 0.5 hectares of olive groves as measured by the geographic information system. For the sake of greater flexibility, however, we shall also increase the number of trees that must be preserved in the groves for which additional aid is paid.
Lastly, I am also prepared to consider an adjustment to the Council’s Annex IV with a view to ensuring that olive groves are cultivated in accordance with good farming and environmental practice. I am also in favour of quality improvements and support for young olive-growers, but I have serious doubts about the proposals contained in Amendments Nos 16, 21, 22, 52, 56, 60 and 61. The matters addressed in these amendments seem to me to be adequately regulated elsewhere."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples