Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-371"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.29.2-371"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Agriculture was confronted with two problems whilst drafting this report. The first was the question of how long, or in other words how much longer the present quota system should remain in force, and the second was the question of how much, or in other words whether the quota levels should be changed.
With regard to the first of these questions, the Committee on Agriculture decided that the quota system should remain in place for the next four marketing years, rather than for the two proposed by the Commission. The Committee was swayed by the argument that this should be a long enough period to enable potato and starch producers to prepare production plans well in advance. The two years suggested in the proposal would be too short a period for such plans, and it was for this reason that the Committee on Agriculture adopted an amendment proposing a longer period of four years.
A heated debate ensued on the second question, however, regarding whether or not changes should be made to quota levels. Much of the debate focused on the question of whether the new Member State had been treated unfairly, since the quotas they were allocated during the accession negotiations did not correspond to their production potential. Whilst the quotas for the 15 old Member States account for 89% of the total EU quota of 1 947 000 tonnes, those for the 10 new Member States amount to only 11% of this figure.
I would remind the Commissioner and the House that the figures show clearly that the 10 new Member States produced more potatoes that the 15 old Member States as recently as 1999, with around 1 400 000 hectares of potatoes grown in the old Member States as opposed to 1 600 000 hectares in the new Member States. The situation has altered somewhat in the meantime, as a result of a sudden drop in the quantity of potatoes grown in the 10 new Member States, but production levels remain very high. Poland, the EU’s largest potato producer, was given as an example during the debate. Although large swathes of Poland’s potato-growing areas have been abandoned, the country remains the leading potato producer. In spite of this, however, its production quotas are several times lower than those allocated to Germany, The Netherlands, or France. This reduced quota means that Poland, a potato giant, does not produce enough starch to meet domestic demand, and has to import large quantities of this product. The other new Member States, in particular Lithuania, are facing similar problems.
Conversely, it was pointed out that although the 15 old Member States have been allocated high starch production quotas, these quotas have not been filled for many years. Over the course of the past six years, for example, the quotas were only filled in 2001, and the shortfall in the remaining years ranged from 3% to 17%. As was noted, it is extremely unfair that certain countries fail to fill their quotas whilst others are struggling to survive because their quotas are too low.
The Committee on Agriculture decided that both an increase in the overall quota and changes to the quotas allocated to individual countries would be out of the question. This decision was mainly motivated by a concern that the market would collapse if production increased. A broad compromise was reached within the Committee, however, which led to an alternative idea of a ‘balancing-out’, whereby countries would be provided with the opportunity to transfer any unfilled quotas. In view of the problems faced by the new Member States, the Committee on Agriculture has proposed a solution that will allow any quotas that have not been filled, as has frequently been the case in recent years, to be transferred. The new Member States would be the first to benefit. I should point out to the Commissioner and the House that this is an extremely good solution, as it does not involve increasing the total production quota, placing the market at risk or disrupting the delicate balance of the system. It would, however, provide us with an opportunity to redress the unfair allocation of quotas, at least in instances where quotas are not filled by certain countries.
I should like to extend my very warm thanks to the members of the Committee on Agriculture, whatever their political persuasion, for having unanimously adopted this compromise proposal. I commend this compromise to the House and to the Commission, in the sincere hope that the proposal for a balancing-out will find its way into the new proposal for a regulation. I would also reiterate that this is an extremely ingenious and much-needed compromise, and one that demonstrates the solidarity between the old and the new Member States that we must aspire to."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples