Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.2.4-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank you, Mr Dary, for your wide-ranging and appreciative comments on the Commission’s proposal to amend the common organisation of the market in bananas.
I shall now turn to the special support measures for our own producers in the European Union. As I have already said, the principle aim of the Commission’s proposal is to bring the COM into line with the WTO’s final ruling. The final ruling does not affect our intra-Community support system. Furthermore, I would like to point out that this is a deficiency payment system, which means that it has a built-in guarantee. If prices fall, subsidies automatically increase.
My last point is about measures giving equal access to organic and fair trade bananas. There are already horizontal measures in place guaranteeing equal access for organic bananas from third countries and organic bananas from the Community. In addition, the European Union can grant subsidies for the production of organic bananas under the agri-environmental measures envisaged in the development plan for rural areas.
Measures to support sales of organic bananas can be financed under national and regional programmes. Fair trade bananas would also come under the horizontal measures for fair trade, which, I hope, will soon be adopted on the basis of a Commission communication to this effect. As you know, this communication is not just about fair trade bananas, but about fair trade in general.
In addition to the possibilities I have just mentioned, it is also possible to provide support for developing production of organic bananas and also of fair trade bananas in the ACP countries under the Regulation establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas.
The Commission is grateful for the wide-ranging discussions that have taken place here today. Even if it feels unable to accept Parliament’s amendments because of the current international situation, I must say that the whole dossier has been handled very constructively and comprehensively in the various committees that have contributed to the Dary report and in the recent hearing held by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
By way of introduction, I would like to stress that the Commission takes a positive view of the principles behind many of the amendments, such as the system of historical references for the allocation of quotas. In fact, these reflect our discussions with the WTO complainants and the ACP producers. However, the Commission believes that we should not amend our proposal at this delicate stage in the discussions, and I therefore have no alternative but to reject your amendments.
I would like to give my reasons for this rejection area by area. The first area is the deletion of references to a tariff only system and an automatic move to such a system after a certain transitional period. I will make no bones about it: the main objective of our proposal is to bring the COM in bananas into line with WTO rules. The most important part of the proposal is the introduction of the tariff system after a certain transitional period. On the other hand, this requires agreement with interested parties on the management of tariff quotas during the transitional period.
The Commission firmly believes that your wish to replace the tariff system with a permanent tariff quota system will only lead to renewed attacks in the WTO. In addition, I would like to point out that the proposal already includes a request to the Council to empower the Commission to enter into negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT, so there is no need to refer to this in the regulation.
The second important area is the issue of managing tariff quotas. The Commission is attempting to negotiate with the principal suppliers about allocating tariff quotas on the basis of historical references. It would not be advisable to additionally define the individual options until these discussions have been concluded. Furthermore, with regard to the demand that the tariff quota administration system should not have an adverse effect on operators and producers already present on the market, I must say that if we have to modify the whole COM now, there can be no guarantee that things will stay exactly as they were. That really would be demanding the impossible.
Our discussions have also covered other alternatives for managing quota C. However, the Commission believes that it would not be appropriate at present to modify its proposal for auctions in relation to quota C, because auctions of this kind are, in any case, a reliable method of allocating licences.
The third area, which relates to quotas, is the extension of the period for maintaining the quota system to at least 10 years. The Commission considers that extending the period in this way would reduce the credibility of the central theme of our proposal, which is that the COM in bananas should be brought into line with the WTO rules as soon as possible. As we explained in the explanatory memorandum, the quickest way to do this is through the tariff system. The Commission has proposed the transitional period because it gives time for producers within the Community and in the ACP countries to prepare for the new system.
Furthermore, if we moved automatically to a tariff only system, there would be no point in having an interim review or an appraisal at the end of the transitional period.
With regard to the tariff preference for ACP countries, the Commission believes that EUR 275 per tonne is sufficient to secure access to the Community market for these countries. A higher preference would also lead to renewed attacks in the WTO. If the higher preference limited Latin American countries’ access under quota C, this could be interpreted as if we wanted in practice to introduce a special ACP quota."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples