Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-14-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020314.1.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by thanking you for your report, Mr Bautista Ojeda, and for all the time and trouble which you have taken in working out the 16 proposed amendments. Before I comment on these proposed amendments, I should like to say a few words about the proposal itself. As you probably know, improvement plans have been implemented for some 600 000 hectares sown with nuts since 1989. The European Union spent a total of EUR 900 million on these plans up to 2001. The purpose of the improvement plans was to enhance the economic basis for nut growing by pooling supplies, improving quality and building up a production and marketing infrastructure.
These plans were limited to ten years, after which financial responsibility would revert solely to producers. However, when the first plans ran out, a one-off extension was granted in Council Regulation No 558/2001. The eleventh year of these plans ran out last year, as did the 10-year deadline for a further series of plans and the plans for the remaining 35% of land sown with nuts will run out by 2006/2007.
On 23 July last year, the Council asked the Commission to launch an in-depth study into all aspects of this sector and called on it to submit the conclusions of the study and any proposals as quickly as possible. The study is well under way and will be presented in May of this year. The Commission was conscious of the fact that something needed to be done in the meantime and that this interim period needed to be bridged, which is why it suggested that the Council and Parliament approve the proposal for a regulation extending the improvement plans by a further year. This draft also makes provision for special aid for hazelnuts.
Now to the 16 proposed amendments. The first group of amendments deals with general issues. Amendment No 1 refers to Regulation No 1035/1972, the proposed amendment to the Commission report to the Council on the common organisation of the market. Of course we can no longer change the wording of a regulation which has been abolished, but Amendment No 2 is acceptable in principle. I also agree with Amendment No 3 highlighting the ecological importance of the nut sector.
The second group of proposed amendments contains proposals for fundamental changes to the existing proposal. All these proposals impact on the budget, some considerably, which is why the Commission cannot agree to them. This applies to Amendments Nos 4 to 6, 10 to 12 and 15 and 16. The third group relates to the future of the sector. Amendments Nos 9 and 13 highlight the need for a permanent support regime for nuts, while Amendment No 8 calls for the benefits achieved with the improvement plans to be preserved, mainly by channelling supplies through producer organisations.
Amendment Nos 7 and 14 call for knowledge on production and control to be improved using the Geographical Information System. All these proposed amendments have repercussions which go beyond the framework of the proposal submitted, which merely recommends a year's extension, which is why I cannot accept these amendments within the context of this proposal. However, I can assure you that we have taken good note of your proposals and shall take proper account of them.
As I have already explained on previous occasions, we are all agreed that there is a chronic lack of competition in this sector and that it does not therefore make economic sense to hang on to the belief that EU producers can hold out against free competition with Turkish hazelnuts or American almonds in the long term. In my opinion, therefore, we need an answer to the following questions. First, does the European Union need to produce its own nuts? Secondly, do nuts fulfil a multifunctional role? Thirdly, should the EU continue to invest in maintaining nut production? And fourthly, if so, in what form?
I feel that support measures should also help to promote the sustainability of rural areas and protect the environment and should not just be geared to making the sector economically competitive. Finally, I should like to thank you once again for your contributions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples