Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-10-Speech-4-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050310.3.4-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, answering all these very important questions within two-and-a-half minutes is not very easy, but I will do my best. It is up to you to stop me when you think I have spoken long enough.
It is clear that the reform will force farmers and producers to take important and sometimes difficult decisions about their future in the sector. We must offer them a clear outlook and, therefore, I consider predictability to be a key issue. I have taken note that this is a concern shared by Parliament. I do not, therefore, intend to include the idea of a mid-term review in two or three years in the legislative proposals. Instead, a long-term perspective should be offered.
Finally, let me summarise the main intentions of this reform. It is important to pursue the principles and objectives set out in the July communication. It is also important to have a long-term perspective, to bring prices and European production to a sustainable level and
to reopen the EBA negotiations. Then, with the help of the European Parliament, we must reach a final political agreement before this summer.
I have been listening with great interest to all the various statements. I believe that we need an ambitious reform, a reform that actually brings the sugar regime into line with the 2003 CAP reform, allowing farmers to take decisions that are market-driven and not based on political decisions. It must also be a reform that will enable the necessary restructuring of the sugar sector, to secure its long-term viability within the European Union.
As regards prices, let me be quite clear. Maintaining prices at levels three times as high as world market prices is becoming increasingly difficult to justify and will certainly not lead to a sustainable European sugar sector. We also need a reform in order to live up to our international commitments.
As for employment, the current regime does not guarantee the maintenance of jobs. Over the last decade, 17 000 jobs have been lost as a result of continuous gains in productivity. If the current regime remains unchanged, it is estimated that there would be around 15 000 fewer jobs in 2012, a loss of more than 75%. The goal is therefore to achieve a competitive sugar sector in the Community, so that the remaining jobs in the sector enjoy long-term sustainability.
There were quite a few questions on impact assessment. The Commission has carried out an impact analysis that gives a clear answer to the main questions relating to the reform proposal, including its regional effects. I am convinced that more studies will not provide us with facts that we do not already know. Further analyses will just lead to a further delay in the decisions that we really have to take.
On the point raised about ownership of quotas, under the current system the quotas for each Member State are fixed by a Council regulation. The Member State then fixes the quantities each sugar producer is allowed to produce under the national quota, and the sugar producers themselves may then distribute sugar directly to the farmer on the basis of delivery rights. Under the quota transfer system, as laid down in the Commission communication of last July, quotas may be transferred between sugar-producing companies, against payment, across national borders. This would mean that companies have access to valuable quota rights, which can be transferred and then paid for.
The normal way to achieve this would be to allocate quotas to companies. However, in the case of the transfer of a quota, the company concerned would not only have to use the money paid for the quota for its own restructuring, but also for compensating the sugar beet farmers for the devaluation of their delivery rights.
As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, I can envisage a restructuring fund system. Such a system could even leave the question of ownership of quotas untouched. The payments out of the fund could take the form of compensatory payments to farmers who suffered from the abandonment of sugar production in a given area.
Many Members have criticised the transfer of quotas. I am willing to explore further the suggestion of a European restructuring fund, which could facilitate a quick exit from the sector by operators who might be interested in going out of business. This is an idea with tremendous legal, budgetary and political implications. However, provided it could be implemented in a safe and equitable way, a restructuring fund could be another tool that might be of great importance to our sugar restructuring objectives."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples