Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-376"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.14.2-376"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, Council representatives, I shall devote the first part of the time available to me to speaking on behalf of Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, who is unable to be here as planned to defend her report on cotton. She would, however, like to me to emphasise that without exception, all CAP reforms in Europe have allowed over ten years for the activities affected to adjust gradually to the changes entailed by changing from a policy of price support to a system of support for producers. This has been the case for all changes to the CAP, dating right back to the McSharry report through to Agenda 2000.
Commissioner, the current reform of cotton production began in 2001. You are now proposing to institute further reform, without any prior environmental impact assessment. I shall return to this point later. You have also failed to appreciate that your plan is in contradiction with the policy enshrined in the protocols annexed to the Acts of Accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal. I would remind you that supporting the production of cotton in producer areas was one of the objectives contained in those protocols. Your final objective is actually complete decoupling. We believe your proposal will result in the production of cotton being discontinued. The Commission seems to be fully aware of this. In addition, action is being taken although no valid assessment of the sector has yet been carried out.
The Commission must be aware that cotton production is concentrated in very backward areas. It must surely understand also that ginning and other related activities are likely to be seriously affected. Let me make the following quite clear to you, Commissioner. There is no alternative crop that could possibly be produced by the farmers affected. Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 prevents them from planting fruit or vegetables. Surely, Commissioner, you are not expecting those farmers to plant maize, thus penalising other producers of maize or beet, because of the quota system? Further, what is to become of the industrial sector?
By contrast, the compromise put forward by the rapporteur does take account of all these factors. It is also in line with the CAP reform guidelines and with agreements reached with the WTO. It would mean all aid to cotton could be taken out of the amber box. I therefore hope we can count on your support, Commissioner, in the effort to prevent the disastrous consequences the proposed reform would have for jobs. It would also have a negative impact on certain areas of my home country. By way of example I could mention Andalusia, an Objective 1 region where serious social concerns exist. Mr Berlato mentioned them earlier.
As regards tobacco, I endorse everything Mr Berlato said. I fully agree with the view he put forward. I would also like to suggest that you read your own regulation again, Commissioner. That should prevent you from repeating statements of the kind you made this evening, namely that no drastic consequences will ensue. The regulation actually states that total decoupling is liable to result in the demise of the sector of production concerned, and that this is particularly likely in the case of tobacco. Nonetheless, Commissioner, you have proposed total decoupling. Your reasoning was inappropriate and misleading, and you presented arguments we all recognise as hypocritical. It is not the case that the Council failed to adopt specific decisions on tobacco at the Gothenburg Council. I think you should also admit, Commissioner, that you have only included the views of the health sector in the environmental impact assessment, and that there is no reference to experts’ views.
The Commission has attempted to justify itself by reference to reform of the CAP. In fact, despite the statement you have just made, Commissioner, only partial decoupling was discussed in June. Nonetheless, you are advocating total decoupling for tobacco and cotton. You are doing so despite being fully aware that these crops are vitally important to certain Objective 1 regions in Europe in terms of both production and employment. Do you not find it contradictory to argue along these lines in the case of such a particularly labour intensive crop? The livelihoods of the tobacco producers are at stake. So too are thousands of related jobs. Indeed, the future of entire villages and regions is threatened.
I find it hard to believe you are actually proposing such a drastic measure, Commissioner. I simply cannot understand how you can be suggesting an abrupt end to the production of these crops, without any transitional period. After all, these are particularly sensitive regions of Europe. I could give you any number of reasons against such a move, Commissioner. As time is short, however, I shall mention just one of them. All sides in this House have striven to come up with a reasonable, just and fair solution. Each of them agreed to compromise on something. Everyone recognises the need to make an effort to find a flexible solution for the Member States, a solution that would also allow the sector to begin to adjust.
The proposal you have put to the House falls far short of this, Commissioner. I therefore appeal to you at least not to prevent the major political agreement reached in Parliament from providing a way forward for the tens of thousands of families that perceive you as an enemy threatening the future of their family and their professional lives. That is certainly how you are perceived in my home region of Extremadura."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples