Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-11-Speech-2-398"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071211.41.2-398"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Madam President, effectively, this proposal for a Council regulation on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries is intended to harmonise and achieve technical consolidation of two regulations currently in force. This is all part of the broader process of simplifying Community legislation and making it more transparent.
Returning to those aspects of the regulation pertaining to simplification, it would be sensible to include promotion actions in the Regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets. This would improve legislative transparency. It should be emphasised that there is a reference to the Community promotion instrument in the Regulation on the market in fruit and vegetables and also in the draft wine reform you referred to, Madam President. Every effort should be made to avoid a situation in which provisions on resources for promotion are unduly dispersed.
In conclusion, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to thank the members of the Committee on Agriculture who unanimously adopted this report, the European Commission representatives I met with repeatedly, the 24 Agriculture Ministers from whom I received letters on this subject, and also the relevant national and European sectoral organisations. I should like to express my appreciation for their active cooperation and sensible comments. These consultations enabled me to assess the existing system and also to familiarise myself with the wishes of these countries and organisations so as to incorporate them.
Finally, I believe that if a suitably larger budget is made available, promotion and information action will allow European producers and farmers to acquire new markets. The ‘Made in Europe’ label will also become better recognised at world level, which is as it should be.
I should like to emphasise, however, that in this case simplification is understood exclusively as a technical process. The draft regulation before us does not, unfortunately, refer to the key principles of promotion and information laid down in the European Commission’s implementing provisions.
Despite these constraints, I adopted a considerably broader and more strategic approach to the promotion of agricultural products within the European Union in my report. The European Parliament must be able to refer to the key issues linked to such an important mechanism. This is particularly relevant if we consider the progress of multilateral negotiations at WTO level, and also the changes in the common agricultural policy’s operating conditions.
Export subsidies of all kinds are to cease by 2013. This includes Community export refunds. A reduction in customs duties is planned. Under these circumstances, increased action in the area of promotion and information is the only way to maintain the export competitiveness of EU agricultural products. Such action will also help to secure new markets in third countries and increase customer awareness of the benefits of European products, thus stimulating demand.
At the same time, none of this will affect market competition conditions. It will not have a negative impact on world trade either. That is why we cannot allow promotion and information action to be sidelined. On the contrary, we should accept them as a European Union priority.
Under the current system, the European Commission draws up a list of specific third-country products on which campaigns may be conducted. This list can be reviewed every two years, whereas the programmes themselves may only be submitted once a year. Furthermore, it is for the European Commission to make the final decision on whether a particular programme will be adopted and on the extent of the financial support it will receive.
The 2007 budget for promotion activities only amounts to EUR 45 million, and is decreasing year on year. This is a particularly surprising trend if we consider that the number of countries in the European Union has increased, and that there has been a marked increase in the actions discussed. Such a policy cannot effectively strengthen the Community’s position and increase awareness of European quality standards, notably on third-country markets.
Appropriate financial resources are required if these ambitious aims are to be achieved. I therefore believe that the threshold of the Community’s financial involvement must be raised from 50% of the real cost of programmes to 60%. I also propose that the minimum contribution by sectoral organisations to financing programmes should be lowered to 10%, precisely so as to enable smaller organisations to become involved. In addition, the Community’s participation could reach 70% in the case of organic farming and programmes relating to action following crisis situations such as avian influenza and BSE, for example.
Programmes should be universally accessible and more flexible. Including all products and all countries and also allowing organisations to submit programmes at least twice a year will allow swift responses to any opportunities that might arise on the markets, and to any possibilities for producers to expand in third countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples