Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.6.2-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for supporting my report on rice by such a large majority. I would like to thank them too for the amendments tabled concerning the report. These also enjoyed a broad degree of consensus within the committee.
In its report, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development endorsed the Commission’s decision to reduce the intervention price for rice so as to bring it into line with world prices. On the other hand, the committee rejected the proposal to set up a private storage regime whenever the price of rice falls below the effective support price.
Consequently, a new concept has emerged, that of the effective support price, which is used to calculate tariffs on the basis of the maximum price system. This is then transferred to the market management system. This price does not amount to any kind of support for the producer and therefore differs, for example, from the intervention price. Rather, it is a virtual system used to trigger a further imprecise and poorly defined measure. I refer to private storage. The latter will not work. It has not worked for other sectors, and will only aggravate the producer’s financial situation. This will in any case be precarious, as the producer will have to bear the consequences of more capital being tied up and also the high costs of maintaining and preserving the product.
I would now like to comment on the special EUR 120 price, that is, the proposed safety net. Allowing prices to stabilise at around EUR 120 amounts to allowing rice growers to go to the wall. Public intervention must therefore be retained as a regulatory mechanism with an institutional price guaranteeing competitiveness and self-sufficiency.
Regarding protection at the frontiers, the exchange regime was designed to comply with the unfortunate Marrakech Agreements for this sector. Consequently, it provides for a system of maximum import prices. The price of husked cargo rice would therefore not be above 180 or 188% of the intervention price, depending on whether the rice is Indian or Japonica.
This price does not take account of the costs of processing from unhusked to cargo. Further, it results in better quality, more expensive rice being imported into the Community at lower tariffs.
The Commission has called for a mandate from the 15 Member States to allow it to negotiate replacement of the current system of variable import duties with fixed duties, within the World Trade Organisation. There does not appear to be agreement, however.
The Committee on Agriculture believes it would be wise to do away with the maximum price system that has resulted in the current situation. It follows that a number of amendments to the report refer to the need to set up appropriate control mechanisms to avoid any irregularities. Other amendments concern the need to guarantee the origin of imported rice and to avoid social and environmental dumping. Still others concern preventing social phenomena such as triangulation, and call for strict traceability and labelling procedures to guarantee food safety.
For all these reasons, the Committee on Agriculture feels a report assessing the consequences of tariff reductions further to the Everything But Arms
initiative should be prepared as a mater of urgency. Such a report must also take account of our concerns and of the economies of third countries.
Mr President, I have reservations as to whether decoupled payments as proposed by the Commission are appropriate for the specific environmental characteristics of rice growing. I am also concerned that cessation of cultivation might be detrimental to the environment in these areas. In addition, a proportional penalty system is required, not a progressive one. This is because rice producers are already unfairly penalised in comparison to other producers. Further, the reference areas must be those predating the reform proposal. I agree with Mr Cunha’s decision in that rice should be a special case, and that it should not be affected by decoupling.
Commissioner, the least protected open markets are also the most vulnerable. Areas that have long been cultivated and are a haven for biodiversity are now at risk. They are threatened by climate change, prolonged drought, and by the considerable pressure exerted on wetlands and protected areas by developers and indeed administrations.
It happens that the largest and most important areas of bird life habitat in Europe are located in such traditional rice-growing areas. It is our responsibility to conserve this habitat regardless of the cost.
The Commission has put forward a proposal for reform of the common organisation of the market in rice as part of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. The proposal takes account of the imbalance caused by the significant increase in imports and in domestic production. Together with the restrictions concerning export refunds, this has resulted in substantial surpluses. The situation is set to be exacerbated in 2006, as tariffs are to be significantly reduced following implementation of the Everything But Arms programme.
The Commission does itself recognise that it is impossible to estimate the full impact of this initiative. Nonetheless it does maintain that intervention stocks will be unsustainable because of third-country exports.
The whole philosophy of the COM reform proposed by the Commission is based on doing away with intervention. No consideration is given to the special significance of this crop in Europe. Account must be taken, moreover, of the fact that small regional economies dependent on crops such as rice are more threatened than ever in a globalised and liberalised world.
The COM in rice must be reformed to adjust it to the new spirit of competitiveness prevailing in the markets. Nonetheless, producers must be assured of a reasonable income. Reform should also be compatible with fair trade and promote the interests of less developed countries. Further, the European Union must continue to play an important role with regard to landscape, as well as social and environmental conditions.
None of this appears in the Commission’s proposal. It does not feature in relation to management of the market, specific rice payments or decoupled aid. If there is no intervention, if there is no protection at the frontiers, if the quality and safety we demand for our products is not guaranteed, this sector will cease to exist.
Effectively, through this proposal, the Commission is passing the burden of responsibility for finding solutions to famine in the third world on to rice producers. This is unfair. A crop such as rice requires special agro-climatic conditions and is therefore bound to be concentrated in specific areas. If single-crop agriculture ceases in these areas, drought, neglect, or salinisation will inevitably ensue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples