Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-239"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.19.2-239"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I am very grateful to the European Parliament and in particular to the rapporteur, Mrs Batzeli, and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Regional Development for their work in preparing an own-initiative report on the Commission’s communication ‘Towards a sustainable European wine sector’.
You also state very clearly that the decision to grub up cannot, and should not, be taken in a vacuum. I completely agree. You have put forward suggestions on how to ensure that grubbing-up complies with a certain number of social and environmental aspects and I can assure you that these will serve as a useful inspiration when we consider how better to frame grubbing-up within our legislative proposal.
I have also noted that you propose to operate a reform in two stages. We will have plenty of time to discuss the timing and how to calibrate the various instruments at the different stages, but I agree on the concept that we need initially to address the structural imbalances that weigh heavily on our sector today.
One issue that you come back to in the report, and which was also a key factor in our earlier debates, is your strong preference for maintaining the wine budget within the first pillar. First of all, I believe that this is at odds with the Community position that rural development measures can make a substantial contribution to the required improvements in the wine-growing regions. Let us not forget that we can ring-fence funds for wine regions in the rural development budget. But I also believe that your position on this issue rests on a false perception that I want to shift considerable funds away from the first pillar, and this is not the case. I have said on several occasions, and will repeat tonight that in the future the majority of funding to the sector will continue to come through the first pillar, but this should not prevent us from drawing on the obvious benefits of also having recourse to the second pillar.
I know that in this Parliament there is a strong push for more Community efforts on promotion. It is indeed important that we improve information about the advantages of moderate and responsible wine consumption and that we promote opportunities in third countries more aggressively. I think that you will agree with me that we need a more progressive and a more modern approach. This is something to which I will certainly give due attention in the legal proposal.
Finally, I would like to say that I have worked with this Parliament for two and a half years. You have clearly demonstrated your ability to be progressive and creative, even on sensitive matters such as the sugar reform, in the pursuit of balanced reform solutions that properly prepare the European Union’s agriculture to face up to its present and future challenges. But when I look at many of your positions, notably on enrichment, distillation, and private storage, I must admit that I find you to be a little more timid than usual in your zeal for reform. I do not expect us to agree on these issues now, but these are areas where I believe we will need to be innovative and creative.
Much difficult work therefore lies ahead of us, but I look forward to your continued and very valuable input. I welcome this opportunity for a debate here tonight. My apologies to the Chair for being more lengthy than usual, but this is a very important issue which is the focus of huge attention in all the regions of Europe and that is why I took the liberty of speaking for a little longer than usual.
I knew before I started the reform process that it would be difficult and complex. These last few months have certainly confirmed this impression. My debates in the Committee on Agriculture and with a number of Members in the Intergroup on Wine here and in their constituencies have shown me that we are dealing with difficult and sensitive issues.
I therefore welcome the report. It is an ambitious report that covers the whole range of aspects addressed in the communication. I believe that I am not saying too much by noting that Mrs Batzeli has grasped the many conflicting concerns that we need to reconcile in the course of the reform. It has been a valiant effort and we will now study the report carefully.
I shall make a few initial observations tonight based on our first reading of the report. Firstly, I should like to express a little regret. The report initially states that the Commission, by advocating the need for the reform within the European Union, is not paying sufficient homage to the image of European wines. Let me, therefore, be completely clear. The European Union’s wine sector is second to none: it delivers the best quality wine in the world, it is extremely diverse and it is an important part of our cultural heritage.
However, some parts of the sector are struggling. Millions of hectolitres go into crisis distillation every year. That is hardly a sign of a sector that is in good shape, which is what I want it to be. I want the sector to be able to compete so that Europe will continue to be the world’s leading producer of wine. That is why the current regime simply has to be changed. It is no longer sustainable.
I think we can agree that it has resulted in a structural imbalance. Stocks are high and, as a result, prices for many wines are low and income for wine-growers has been reduced. These developments, combined with falling consumption, changing lifestyles and increasing imports from third countries, have forced changes upon us. I think this is widely accepted.
The direction we all want to take is described in recital K of your report. It suggests that the principal aims of the reform should be to strengthen the dynamism and competitiveness of the sector without losing its market share in international markets, but, equally, to take account of the interests of producers and consumers, while respecting the objectives of maintaining tradition, quality and authenticity.
It goes without saying that you are critical of certain elements of the communication, including matters such as the consumption forecast and the alerts, and the contradiction between the policies of grubbing-up and competitiveness.
The Commission agrees that one of the main challenges is to revive demand, but profitability is even more vital and the pattern of structural surplus leading to lower prices and negative incomes needs to be stopped first. Profitability is not a question of concentrating production in a few hands and then standardising the wine. There are small producers who make wine of a wonderful quality and who are also very profitable and I see no reason why this should not still be the case in future. However, grubbing-up allows those wine producers who are never going to be able to be competitive and who are not able to respond to consumer demand to leave with dignity and compensation. Surely no one here wants to force those producers who have no profitable, predictable future in the sector just to remain because they cannot afford to leave. I fully understand that grubbing-up is a sensitive question. I therefore particularly appreciate the constructiveness that the European Parliament has already shown on this issue. I welcome your recognition that the decision to grub up must lie with the grower and, having said this, I have also studied your different suggestions very attentively."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples