Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-23-Speech-3-431"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070523.28.3-431"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, honourable Members, the Commission has followed with great interest the debate in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on Mr Glattfelder’s report. We are dealing with a sensitive issue here.
Doing away with an instrument such as maize intervention, as the Commission has proposed, is never easy. But in this case it is necessary and the evidence shows that we are faced with a structural problem with maize intervention. It is no longer a safety net but has become a real market outlet. In one Member State about one third of the harvest in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 was offered to intervention. Farmers are producing directly for intervention. Is this normal at a time where market prices are at a normal level? EU maize intervention stocks doubled from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 from 2.8 million tonnes to 5.6 million tonnes. If this growth continues, the European Union will have 15.6 million tonnes in its stocks by 2013. This is hardly a development the Commission wants to see at a time when the CAP reforms are doing away with stocks in other commodities.
The report suggests that the Commission’s proposal is inconsistent with the principle of legitimate expectations, is founded on incorrect market estimates and would have negative effects on cereal markets. I would like to explain why the Commission does not share these views, beginning with the legitimate expectations.
Farmers’ sowing decisions are based on a series of considerations and mainly the marketability of their crop. The Commission’s proposal does not interfere with the broad range of potential commercial outlets for maize. Market and income stability are not threatened in any way and the legitimate expectations of farmers are fully preserved.
On the economics of the proposal, I would stress that Commission’s estimates are based on long-term trends. Forecasts by independent research institutes support the Commission’s own analysis that maintaining the status quo is simply not sustainable. The lack of intervention offers during the ongoing campaign and the resale of intervention stocks in the internal market cannot be presented as conclusive evidence that the market has found a new balance. Indeed, this is far from the case and the economics of maize production indicate that with price levels back to normal maize will once again be offered massively to intervention in some Member States.
The Commission sees from this that there is a need to act. We cannot defend a simple status quo. It is not in the interests of the agricultural sector to insist on a scheme that so clearly has departed from its original objective. We wanted to act quickly and we proposed abolishing the scheme immediately, but we realise that this would create some difficulties. We are therefore prepared to discuss a phased reduction of the maize intervention scheme. This could be done over a period of two years and then we would have the opportunity to assess and discuss the future of the scheme in the context of the health check. Commissioner Fischer Boel is prepared to have such a discussion. But for the Parliament simply to refuse any considerations on altering the maize intervention scheme, as proposed by Mr Glattfelder, is not acceptable to the Commission. We therefore sincerely hope that the European Parliament will not support the recommendation to reject the Commission’s proposal and will instead engage in a debate on how to design a phased reduction of the unsustainable maize intervention scheme."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples