Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-05-Speech-4-006"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010405.2.4-006"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"C
.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to go into what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has just said as David Byrne will make a statement on this at the end of the debate. I would like to clarify the issue of so-called protein deficits. On 4 December last year, the Commission was invited by the Agriculture Council to analyse the situation of the market for protein-rich plants and to draw the appropriate conclusions from this analysis. At the time the invitation was extended, it was made clear that all Commission proposals had to move within the framework of the financial forecast agreed in Berlin.
The second option we have examined is to increase the aid quotient for peas, beans and sweet lupins by EUR 6. We opted for EUR 6 because such an increase would be covered by the peace clause in the WTO. Simulations have shown that, with the current price ratio between protein crops and cereals, this increase would only lead to a very small increase in cultivated areas. This would lead to extra expenditure, which would be higher than the price of any additionally imported soya, since the entire crop has to be paid for out of this increased subsidy.
Thirdly, we have assessed the consequences the planting of protein-rich crops would have on set-aside land. If crops are sown on set-aside land which are then in competition on the market with cereals and oilseeds, this would result in the blue-box eligibility of land premiums in cereal production being called into question, quite apart from the fact that such a step would trigger severe international criticism.
Finally, we have examined the possibility of increasing the guaranteed maximum quantity for green meal and dried feedingstuffs together with a reduction in per-tonne guaranteed aid. As you all know, dried feedingstuffs are primarily used for ruminants and not for pigs and poultry, and our problem is primarily the keeping of pigs and poultry. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether increasing the guaranteed maximum quantity by 10% would in fact lead to an increase in produced quantities, if we already have an estimated dried feedingstuffs surplus of 12% in the 2000/2001 financial year. The increase in guaranteed maximum quantities would most likely be used to cover existing surpluses.
Against this backdrop, from an economic standpoint, there are no convincing reasons for introducing new support measures for protein production or for extending the scope of existing support measures. The availability of soya meal on the world market is not a problem. Quite the opposite, the extra quantities needed will increase current imports by just 3% to 5%. The expansion of soya production in South America and the USA will bring more soya meal onto the market than the European Union can use. What is more, the current budgetary plan does not allow for any leeway to implement the options we have assessed.
A few days later, the European Council in Nice defined the Commission obligation more precisely and called for a detailed analysis of supply and demand for oleaginous and protein crops to be carried out under strict compliance with the financial parameters agreed in Berlin. The Commission was happy to accept this invitation. It made a detailed investigation of the issues that had been raised and summarised its findings in a working document and in a Council communication to Parliament. What were these findings?
In 2000, approximately 3 million tonnes of animal meal were produced in the European Union. Some 2 million tonnes were exported to third countries and a further half a million tonnes were used in the production of pet food. The remaining 2 million tonnes or so were used as pig swill and poultry feed. With the Council Decision of 4 December last year, the use of such feedingstuffs and such animal protein was banned for all agricultural livestock. As you know, until then they had only been banned for ruminants.
The key issue here is to determine whether replacing the shortfall in animal meal by vegetable crops is a problem and, if not, how this should best be brought about. To be able to assess the changed demand for feedingstuffs we must first take a look at the development of meat consumption and meat production. The analysis contained in the working document is based on the assumption that the per-capita consumption of beef in the wake of the BSE crisis of 1996 will start to recover in the coming three to five years. This should mean an increase in both the consumption and production of pork and poultry meat. There are also two factors which determine the demand for feedingstuffs in pig and poultry production, firstly, the lack of animal meal and, secondly, the expected rise in production.
To replace animal meal in feedingstuffs for pigs and poultry, primary consideration will be given to soya meal, then rapeseed and sunflower meal, peas, beans and sweet lupins. Cereals are also taken into account even though the protein content of cereals is relatively low. In practice the composition of feedingstuffs will be determined by the price and availability of raw materials and technical constraints.
The combined effect of all these variables is difficult to predict and it is even more difficult to isolate the changes brought about by the ban from normal market adjustments or the consequences of political measures. The current price ratio between cereals and soya will trigger three main reactions in the feedingstuffs industry and among farmers. Firstly, as prices for oilseed meal are relatively high in comparison with cereals, the proportion of protein-rich feedingstuff ingredients will be reduced to the physiologically requisite minimum. As a result, in comparison with previous years, especially 1998 and 1999 when soya prices were extremely low, the total quantity of raw protein in animal feed has fallen.
Secondly, the proportion of cereals in animal feed should increase. Cereals are admittedly suppliers of energy rather than protein, but with an average protein content of 10% to 12%, the 5 million extra tonnes of cereals which will be fed to animals this year will supply half a million tonnes of raw protein.
Thirdly, the remaining gaps will be filled by additional imports of soya meal. In view of the slight drop in the total quantity used and the additional quantity resulting from cereals, there is expected to be a soya requirement in the order of one to one and a half million tonnes.
What options have we examined to close these expected gaps? Firstly, we have looked into the possibility of increasing the aid quotient to EUR 74 per tonne, rather then keeping it at the same level as cereals, namely at a level of EUR 63 per tonne, as was decided in Agenda 2000. The disadvantage of this option is that it would re-introduce crop-specific aid for oilseeds and production would be subject to the upper ceiling set out in the Blair House agreement. Furthermore, if this option were chosen, around EUR 1 270 per tonne of soya meal equivalent more would have to be spent on additional subsidies, which is 6 times more in additional subsidies than soya currently costs. The budget costs for this option would amount to some EUR 475 million a year."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples