Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-07-Speech-4-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050707.26.4-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The archipelagos of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, and the French overseas departments, are referred to as the EU’s outermost regions and are characterised by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate and economic dependence on a few products. This concept of outermost regions was introduced into the EU’s primary law in Article 299(2) of the Treaty, and constitutes the legal basis for the Council to adopt specific measures applicable to the outermost regions, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting Parliament.
As the Commissioner mentioned, agricultural programmes specifically designed to offset the problems faced by the outermost regions have been in place since 1991 and 1992. These programmes have encompassed two types of measure: firstly, specific supply arrangements, to support the supply to these regions of agricultural products destined for human and animal consumption, processing in local industries and agricultural inputs; and secondly, support for local agricultural production. These measures have had a considerable impact and have had a positive influence on reviving the economies of the outermost regions. As has also been mentioned, however, experience over the years has shown that greater flexibility is needed in the management of these two schemes.
The proposal currently before us maintains the previous programmes, but proposes a radical change of philosophy, whereby the management of programmes is made easier and the decision-making process is brought closer to those principally affected, namely the regions themselves, whilst at the same time maintaining the level of support granted in the past. The Commission’s intention to decentralise decision making and simplify the management arrangements is to be welcomed, as is the approach based on encouraging participation in decision making and speeding up the implementation of measures responding to their specific needs. I therefore broadly agree with the Commission’s proposal. There are some issues, however, that should be improved upon, and to this end some amendments have been adopted that form part of my report.
Firstly, I feel that, given that there are no export refunds, no restrictions should be placed on the possibility of exporting or re-dispatching processed products that have received support under the specific supply arrangements. This is because production and the market in the outermost regions are often too small to guarantee the sustainability of local processing industries, which are essential for the survival of some agricultural crops and for a degree of diversification. Consequently, in some cases these industries need to complement their supplies with raw materials from outside and to export or dispatch their products to ensure their viability. I must also express my satisfaction with the measures announced by the Commission for the outermost regions in the proposed reform of the sugar common market organisation. Yet there is one specific question that this does not resolve. I refer to beet production in the Azores, involving the Sinaga company, which will have no chance of survival, either under the regulation currently in force or with the Commission’s proposal.
Secondly, given the time limits laid down in the draft regulation for the submission of programmes and for their approval, I feel that the date scheduled for their application needs to be made more flexible, in order to remove the risk that the current regulation will be revoked before the programmes arising from the new legislation can enter into force.
Thirdly, I also wish to stress the importance of introducing the possibility of granting derogations for the outermost regions in the area of rural development, taking account of the specific features and vulnerable parts of this area, thereby providing continuity for the current regime.
Fourthly, as regards the basis for defining the financial ceilings, I feel that the reference period of 2001 to 2003 is inappropriate for defining the amount of funding, as this takes no account of the impact of changes made under the 2001 reform. My report therefore suggests that, in the calculation of financial ceilings, account should also be taken of exemptions granted under the specific supply arrangements. As well as representing a fairer deal for the outermost regions, this approach does not inflate the amounts involved in support currently granted to those regions.
Lastly, I should like to congratulate my colleagues in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for the support that they have given me and, in particular, the Members from the outermost regions, who have worked very hard on this process. I should also like to thank the politicians and the representatives of the socio-economic sectors of these regions for their dedication and support while I was drawing up this report.
Commissioner, I wish to point out that this report was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and I trust that Parliament will take this into account when it gives its final opinion on this issue as expressed via the vote. I trust that the Commission will appreciate the enormous importance of this issue to the outermost regions, and I naturally ask the Members of this House to vote in favour of this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples