Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-25-Speech-2-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070925.4.2-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, allow me first of all to remind you that in its original opinion on the Common Market Organisation (CMO) in sugar the European Parliament pointed out that the Commission’s proposals ought to contribute to the essential viability of the new system and to the safeguarding of the sugar beet growers, the workers in sugar mills and areas of production, all of which will be affected by the elimination of quotas. This was our political commitment and agreement, based on which we gave our consent to the Commission.
However, I should like to point out to the Commission and the Council, not attending the debate here today, that we must bear in mind the reduced contribution of undertakings, which have either voluntarily reduced their quotas by participating in the restructuring regime or participated in the preventative withdrawal mechanism. We propose a broader and more long-term use of preventative withdrawal, thus assisting smoother adaptation of the sector to future challenges. Since the subject of preventative withdrawal has hitherto not been found in the compromise at Council level, I should like to include it, Commissioner, if you agree.
As for the amendment of Regulation No 320/2006 on the restructuring regime, which is in any case the central aspect of the reform, my report proposes:
firstly, to increase to EUR 260 per tonne the lump sum of EUR 237 per tonne which the producers will receive. We insist on this, despite your disagreement, Commissioner, because we believe that it is a significant incentive for producers to move to the concept of a 10% voluntary renunciation;
secondly, to increase to 50% the single compensation amount for producers from restructuring aid, which is currently fixed at 10%. This increase is a political commitment by the European Parliament; it shows that the subsidies ought to go mainly to the producers. The message more political than financial;
thirdly, the compensation paid to undertakings for the production of bio-ethanol should be raised from 35% to 100%, since, in our view, a significant incentive should be given to contribute to the renewable energy sources sector;
fourthly, and of particular importance for the regions, is the maintenance of aid for diversification in the regions where mills have closed: it should remain at EUR 109.5 per tonne of reduced sugar production until the 2009-2010 period. Commissioner, we seek partly to improve funding in order to reduce the impact on the regions as well as to provide additional incentives. The review is intended not to amend some general provisions but to strengthen incentives;
fifthly, the renunciation of 10% of quotas should apply first of all to small or less competitive producers;
sixthly, restructuring aid must be increased for partial abandonment, from EUR 218.75 to EUR 625 for the 2008-2009 period. I have to admit that the rapporteur’s position is particularly significant in supporting issues of this sort.
I should like to point out as rapporteur that certain proposals of the Agriculture Committee ought to be re-examined to get things in proportion. For this reason, I believe we ought to take into account funding from the Restructuring Fund and also additional funding from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
As rapporteur, I should therefore, like to endorse Amendments 27 to 30, which introduce three fundamental principles:
However, the final decisions by the Council in 2005 on the review of the sugar sector could not meet these high expectations. The sector is particularly important for the equalisation of the arable crops market, the supply of European sugar and bio-ethanol factories, as well as the advancement of a new framework of policies for the modification of other CMOs under review within the context of the new CAP. The Council’s decisions have seemed doomed from the outset to a short life and marginalisation because they were no more than a patchwork of national demands and complex mechanisms.
firstly, a retroactive measure, because producers, undertakings and regions which have complied progressively from the start of the new CMO cannot be penalised;
secondly, the amount of aid must be reasonable and acceptable to all sides (and not EUR 625 for one year);
thirdly, it is important to increase retroactively and until the end of the transitional period the amount of aid given to mills for partial abandonment of production.
In closing, allow me to express a note of warning. Negotiations the Commission is holding with the ACP countries within the framework of the EPA are ongoing. The Commission seems ready to abolish both the safety clauses with regard to the total quantities of sugar importable into the Community by each partner country and the minimum price clause for imported sugar. In addition, it is also proposed that access to the Community market should be liberalised in a similar way for the sixteen Sugar Protocol countries.
Commissioner, I believe that we are called upon to do important work here. Such decisions outside the institutional framework should be invalid: they would invalidate the political and institutional role played by the European Parliament.
This decision and the way it is implemented at national level mean that the reduction in production to date has been no more than 2.2 million tonnes, whereas the target is approximately 6 million tonnes by 2010. I should like remind you that for any kind of reduced production after 2010 the producing regions, workers and producers will not receive any compensation from the Restructuring Fund, which is totally self-funded.
Such, then, were the important political issues occupying us in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development when we had to decide on the report with which you are acquainted.
Commissioner, in the Agriculture Committee we made significant improvements for the unimpeded implementation at national level of Community decisions. We did not seek radically to review the sugar CMO, and, in any case, you indicate this in your text. We did not seek to propose a multi-speed review since in many regions such as Ireland sugar production has already been reduced in part or totally abandoned.
In addition, we have considered the existing budgetary savings amounting to approximately EUR 3 million. If this money is not used, it will not be ploughed back into the sector but will fund other projects or will be paid back.
Finally, in light of the principle of proportionality and equality with regard to sugar beet growers, we must all agree with the principle of the retroactivity of the measures proposed in order not to create a climate of injustice for producers, mills and regions that have already joined the new system.
I should also like to point out that the ineffectiveness of the large degree of the Member States’ flexibility and subsidiarity worries us. This flexibility has become an unofficial nationalisation of the measures: the Member States have been free to implement the new CMO as they please, bending to the pressures exerted on them by collective bodies and regional authorities. The way the Member States treat the concept and policy of flexibility ought to be a matter of concern for us in future reviews, as should the issue of how this policy is to be used within the framework of health check decisions.
Commissioner, we must now move from political questions to technical issues, which will also decide the course of the CMO review. With regard to the amendment of Regulation No 318/2006, we consider that what is required is a fairer application of the final linear quota reductions by 2010. If a straight reduction in quotas is considered necessary in 2010, our committee believes that this reduction should be conducted in two stages. During the first stage there should be a linear cut of 13.5%. During the second stage the Commission’s proposal should be implemented; accordingly, the Member States and those undertakings which have renounced quotas during the restructuring regime would be exempted. The exemption will be in line with the efforts made at national level."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples