Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-352"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060927.27.3-352"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, thank you for the opportunity, even if it is fairly late, to speak about our proposals for new import provisions for organic products. And thank you, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for the valuable report.
With more than 150 000 holdings on 4.4 million hectares, an estimated turnover of almost EUR 11 billion in 2002 and a clear tendency to further growth, this is a very important sector. Considering the very wide range of products on the market and the number of processed products that contain one or more imported ingredients, it is clear that imports are vital for the development of the organic sector within the European Union.
We need to be sure that consumers are confident that the products that they buy as being organic really are so, whether they are imported or produced within the European Union and that there is no unfair competition for European organic producers. At the same time, we need to make firm arrangements for our trading partners so that organic production can continue to increase.
Since 1992, imported products have been able to enter the European Union either from third countries that are recognised by the Community as providing equivalent official guarantees – there are now seven countries on that list and about the same number of applicant countries – or through Member State authorisations for the entry of specific consignments. The latter system derogates from the common rules, which expire at the end of 2006. With this proposal, we want to fill the gap between that date and 1 January 2009, the date of entry into force of the overall proposal we have submitted, which contains exactly the same provisions on imports as we have on the table tonight. There is no difference between what we are proposing now and what will be included in the main proposal entering into force on 1 January 2009. We propose to keep the third country list as it is, but to replace Member State authorisations with a permanent Community system. Finally, our proposal provides for direct access for fully compliant products in order to respect our international trade obligations.
I have noted that the report calls for extra guarantees on this last possibility of direct access. I do not think that our positions on this issue are very far apart. We want to go as far as we can in requesting guarantees from third country operators that are willing to take that route, but without putting ourselves in a position where we could be challenged by the WTO system.
Therefore, I can partially accept Amendments 1 and 2. To a great extent, I can agree in principle to your other amendments, but I would prefer to keep this proposal as concise and simple as possible, setting out all the main rules needed, but not more than that. Further details should, in my view, go into the future implementing rules.
I have also noted with pleasure the great willingness to support the development of the local control bodies in third countries. This is a policy element that I support, but it does not belong in this regulation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples