Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-06-Speech-3-256"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070606.23.3-256"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, we are currently in the final and decisive phase for the approval of the reform of the fruit and vegetables sector. We launched the debate on 24 January 2007 and since then we have received lots of very valuable input, not least from the European Parliament and the report of Mrs Salinas García. I thank you for this and for your constant support for the general objectives and the general principles of the Commission proposal.
On the basis of this report we have considered that the best way to address the problem is to add incentives to increase the number of producer organisations in the new Member States, which is what we did in our original proposal. Nevertheless, taking into account the sensitivities of this soft-fruit sector, I am open to considering specific smaller support, but I want to make it absolutely clear that it must be transitional and limited to certain products.
Finally, on promotion of fruit and vegetables, I fully agree with you that this issue is of huge concern not only to agriculture but also to health and to consumer policies. We produce plenty of high-quality fruit and vegetables in the European Union, but our citizens do not consume enough of them, with growing consequences for their health. I would be in favour of a school fruit scheme to be implemented in line with the position taken by the Commission on 13 May 2007 in the White Paper on a strategy for Europe on nutrition, weight and obesity-related health issues. However, before doing this we would need to carry out the necessary impact assessments of such a measure. I have asked my services to undertake such work immediately.
Those are my first comments and I am looking forward to a constructive discussion with the honourable Members of the European Parliament.
When considering the substance of your opinion, I have chosen to focus on a few issues to which you have given very special attention.
Firstly, on producer organisations, it is clear that both the Commission and the European Parliament believe that producer organisations should be maintained and even further reinforced in order to increase the degree of the concentration of the supply. This is absolutely fundamental if the sector is to match the huge concentration that we see these days in the retail sector. As you know, we have proposed a number of new initiatives in order to make our producer organisations much more attractive. We have proposed additional Community financing of 60%: firstly, for mergers between producer organisations and associations of producer organisations; secondly, for regions where the level of the concentration of the supply through producer organisations is below 20%; thirdly for organic farming; fourthly for new Member States and, finally, for the outermost regions.
I am aware that you have requested even more action to be included in the additional Community financial assistance of 60% to the operational funds, such as joint action between producer organisations or integrated production. However, what we have proposed will already make a very positive difference. I should like to stick to these measures in the first place. As you surely know, we also need to be attentive to the budgetary constraints.
On crisis prevention and management, I agree with you that it is one of the most sensitive points of the reform and I should like to thank you for the ideas that you propose in your opinion. However, I cannot accept the idea of a separate fund for crisis management and the need to define what we actually mean when we talk about a ‘crisis’. A separate fund would result in a substantial budget increase and, moreover, will not contribute to further simplification.
With regard to the use of a percentage of the national reserve for crisis management, this is not acceptable either. The national reserve was created at the very beginning to accommodate particular situations in the framework of the single payment scheme and it is not appropriate to devote this budget to another objective or other measures.
However, I understand your call for more flexibility in order to facilitate crisis management. Rather than making a completely separate structure, I should therefore positively consider adding more flexibility to the structure proposed in our initial Commission proposal in order to make the scheme as efficient as possible and to avoid a major decline in prices. Nevertheless, I want to underline that we also need to bear in mind that any modification of the current proposal has to respect the overall budgetary constraints, as well as the need for simplification.
On the inclusion of fruit and vegetables for processing in the single payment scheme, you have requested an optional transitional period, in particular for tomatoes. You are also in favour of a separate payment for tomatoes for historical producers in the new Member States. I am open to accept a short transitional period in which Member States could decide to grant aid per hectare. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that full decoupling must be both the precondition and the end goal – so final decoupling at the end.
I am also aware that the soft-fruit sector is facing difficulties. The Commission analysis has shown that fragmentation of both production and marketing has contributed to the difficulties faced in recent years by the soft-fruit sector."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples