Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.5.3-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by thanking Mr Dary for this, his second report, and for his committee's thorough examination of the Commission's proposal for the amendment of the common organisation of the market in bananas. My thanks also go to the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for his efforts in connection with the compromise amendments contained in the second report.
On Amendments Nos 19 and 32, concerning organically produced bananas, may I say once again that there are already horizontal measures in place to guarantee the equivalence of organic bananas from third countries with those produced in the Community. Moreover, the organic production of bananas also qualifies for support under the current agri-environmental measures. Marketing schemes for these bananas are also part of national and regional rural-development programmes. So all the instruments are in place; it is up to the Member States concerned to make good use of them.
As for fair-trade bananas, to which Amendments No 20 and 33 refer, our position on these has not changed either, because fair-trade bananas would be covered by any horizontal measures that were adopted on the basis of our communication. It would therefore make little sense to make provision for measures relating specifically to fair-trade bananas in the common organisation of the market. The ‘greyhound’ system, incidentally, offers a better deal than the present regime to those who produce and sell fair-trade bananas. Let me also say that the representatives of fair trade in bananas have expressly welcomed the regime we have proposed. I should also like to add that financial support is likewise provided already for the development of the production of organically produced and fair-trade bananas in the ACP countries under the Regulation establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas.
May I deal finally with Amendments Nos 1 to 5 as well as 12 and 36. In essence, these amendments only reiterate the main principles which are already enshrined in the original text of the basic Regulation 404/93 and in the new Commission proposal. We therefore believe that they are quite simply superfluous, and so, for reasons of form, we must reject these amendments. But, as I said, their substance is already enshrined in current legislation.
The Commission would like to thank the European Parliament for your constructive work on this proposal and to express its satisfaction at the constructive nature of the talks we have held on this extremely complex issue. This dossier has been on the table for some time now, because we have had to discuss it with all the interested parties. However, the Commission believes that the proposal presented in November 1999, supplemented by the communication of October 2000, offers the basis for a solution. We hope that the House is now in a position to deliver its opinion, as requested by the Council in October. That would be a very important step, because there is a real prospect of finding a genuine solution to this long-standing problem in the very near future.
The responses and remarks I intend to make today are certainly more favourable than in April, when, because of the talks that were taking place at that time with the governments of third countries, it was simply impossible to accept even a single point from the amendments. I should like to emphasise from the outset that the Commission fully sympathises with the principles that underlie many of the amendments, for example the proposals relating to the EU producers and the ACP supplier countries. I believe that the communication issued by the Commission in October addresses and dispels many of the fears you expressed. For example, for the third quota the Commission is now proposing a tariff preference of EUR 300 per tonne for the ACP supplier countries and a tariff of EUR 300 per tonne for third countries.
I shall move on now to the individual amendments. Allow me to begin with those which the Commission is able to accept in whole or in part. In accordance with our new proposal for the ACP tariff preference, the Commission can accept Amendment No 29. It must remain possible, however, to lower the tariff if it turns out to have a prohibitive effect on non-ACP supplier countries. This is important, because we must ensure that the third quota cannot be regarded as being solely reserved for the ACP countries in practice. I can also accept Amendment No 28, if a corresponding clause is added about the possibility of reducing the tariff. As for the recital referring to the ACP preference, we agree with EUR 300 per tonne here too, but we consider the word 'maximum' to be unnecessary. For this reason we can only partially accept Amendment No 16.
A second subject that has played a part in this debate is that of the reports. The Commission accepts the reinstatement of Article 32, calling for the presentation of a mid-term assessment by 31 December 2004. This relates to Amendment No 34. If the report had to be presented any earlier, it would quite simply be impossible to discern the relevant market trends. The Commission therefore regrets that it cannot accept the amendments calling for the annual submission of a formal report, by which I mean Amendments 14 and 35. However, the Commission can certainly give you this information annually in Parliament on the basis of the information available to us at the time.
Unfortunately, the Commission cannot accept the other amendments, for the following reasons: the first group of amendments, comprising Nos 6, 7, 11, 15, 25 and 26, relates to the deletion of references to the ‘tariff only’ system in the operative articles and to the automatic switch to that system after a fixed transitional period, accompanied by a regime of tariff quotas. The fact is that the ‘tariff only’ system is an important factor which ensures that the Commission's proposal is well balanced and can serve as a basis for progress in the Council. However, I must also remind you that, come what may, the Council must declare its acceptance of the outcome of the negotiations on Article 28 and set a new tariff. So the automatic transition relates to the legal construct, but when and in which specific circumstances it is to take place must then be decided by the Council.
The second point at issue, which is related to the first, concerns the administration of the tariff quotas. The amendments in question are Nos 17 and 18, No 27 and Nos 30 and 31. As you know, the Commission has spent a great deal of time trying to secure an agreement on the administration of the regime on the basis of historical reference quantities, but all its efforts have proved fruitless.
That is why we have now proposed, in our October communication, that the quotas be administered by means of the so-called 'greyhound’ system, which means that this procedure would henceforth be used for the administration of all three quotas. However, so that all supplier countries can have access, in principle, to all the quotas, the Commission services must, as I said before, have scope to lower the tariff preference within these quotas. Similarly, it would not be possible to grant the ACP supplier countries preferential treatment under quota ‘C’, because that would not be a ‘greyhound’ system and would not conform to the rules of such procedure; moreover, it would not be WTO-compliant.
The next issue, which also relates to the quotas, is the extension of the period of validity of the tariff-quotas regime. In the view of the Commission, the ten-year period to which Amendments Nos 11 and 13 refer would be too long. Besides, there is probably very little chance of our trading partners accepting such an extension.
This brings me to the amendments that relate to additional support measures for EU producers and to compensatory aid. Among the proposed additional support measures are marketing aid (Amendment No 24), additional support from the structural funds (Amendment No 10) and a price review with adjustment of compensatory aid as required (Amendment No 23). I should like to point out that the Commission's proposal is designed to be compatible with the findings of the WTO dispute-settlement panel, but these findings make no reference to intra-Community provisions. A formal review of the compensatory-aid mechanism is therefore unnecessary, because the current regime permits full compensation for the income effects of price fluctuations. These remarks relate to Amendments Nos 7, 10, 13 and 21 to 24."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples