Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.12.3-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the proposal for a regulation before us relates to the scheme specifically covering exchanges of non-Annex 1 products with third countries, the main provision of which is for the granting of export refunds in respect of incorporated agricultural products. Annex 1 of the Treaty defines the list of products eligible for a COM under the CAP. These are basic agricultural products and products that have undergone initial processing. Non-Annex 1 products are those that have been processed a second time.
These, then, are the component elements of a genuine monitoring tool which we think it essential to implement in order to ensure that the new agricultural product refunds are operating in accordance with the objectives which justify our agreeing to them. In the longer term, however, there will only be a lasting solution to the issue we are to deal with today as a matter of urgency if, when the WTO agreements next come up for renewal, Community negotiators receive clear instructions to the effect that adequate account must be taken of the interests of our non-Annex 1 products and that the close links forged by our processing industries with our producers of agricultural raw materials and their countries must be maintained and consolidated.
The problem which has now come fully to light and which the Community has to deal with as from this year is the fact that, because of the consolidations granted by the Community under the Marrakesh agreements, refunds are no longer sufficient in relation to needs.
The Commission cannot be said to have been overly imaginative in seeking solutions to this difficult problem, where a lot is at stake for our manufacturers and processors of agricultural products. Other than simply withdrawing certain products from the list of those eligible for refunds and in that way causing difficult administrative problems for the sectors concerned, one solution alone presents itself, as usual: that of extending the system of active improvement which allows agricultural raw materials to be imported at the so-called world market price, as long as the processed products in which they are incorporated are re-exported.
No alternative solution to the system of refunds on agricultural products has been seriously looked into. Other windows onto the subject, opened by certain Member States such as Germany and Austria, were immediately closed again, since any alternative proposal was declared out of hand to be incompatible with the constraints to which we have subjected ourselves under the GATT agreement.
In the circumstances, we obviously have to give primary consideration to the size of the sector concerned and to the volume of exports. Rapidly increasing exports of non-Annex 1 processed products alone represent 25% of total exports of products from the food and agricultural sector as a whole, and 2.5 million jobs, widely distributed among the different countries of Europe, depend upon this single sector. For these products, additional access to agricultural product refunds at least constitutes a partial, quick fix solution which, in the absence of alternative proposals, makes it possible immediately to guarantee the competitiveness of non-Annex 1 products.
The parliamentary Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has maintained that the ways in which the additional agricultural product refunds were applied should be determined in such a way as effectively to enable companies to have recourse to these within the acceptable limits laid down by the supply balances. In this way, it would be possible to maintain a sufficient quantity of refunds for companies which cannot make use of these, either in order to avoid GMOs or because of the unavailability of raw materials on the world market or the lack of staff or appropriate infrastructures.
That said, agricultural product refunds present a range of risks and disadvantages. First of all, a disadvantage in terms of principle: agricultural product refunds do, indeed, by their nature circumvent the Community’s expressed preference. The European agri-foodstuffs industry ought to be encouraged to give preference to Community raw materials. This implies that, despite the extension proposed to us, the agricultural product refunds ought definitely not to become a structural tool but ought to remain a residual scheme and a last resort solution, to be implemented only when there is a real shortage of refunds.
That is why we are proposing a series of amendments which ought to be taken into consideration overall to reinforce this residual character of the agricultural product refunds. We believe that any extension to the agricultural product refunds should be subject to very strict supervision and follow-up. That is why we are in favour of establishing quotas for the scheme. That is why we are also proposing that, at the end of the first year in which the scheme has been implemented, the Commission should present the European Parliament with a precise interim report providing, in particular, an update on the situation regarding each COM concerned. In that way, we shall have a tool of superintendence and control with which to ensure that agricultural product refunds are of limited availability, that the amounts concerned are no more than are really needed, that they do not have an adverse effect upon our own producers of raw materials and that they are not concentrated upon a limited number of COMs at the risk of destabilising these.
A second disadvantage of the system of agricultural product refunds is the particular complexity and the cumbersome procedures it imposes upon SMEs in particular. The latter ought to be given easier access to these refunds, which remain more straightforward to administer, and, in this context, they ought to be exempted from presentation of certificates up to an adjustable ceiling of EUR 50 000 per year. Bear in mind that the refunds, particularly for processed food products, are far from being reserved solely for large businesses. They play an essential role where SMEs are concerned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples