Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-12-Speech-1-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010312.8.1-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me, before I comment on the factual questions, to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Daul, and also to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Industry and Budgets Committees, whose Members were involved in the very thorough examination of the proposal to reform the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, for their dedicated work.
Amendments Nos 19, 14, 37 and 38 seek to make it possible once again for Italy, Spain and Portugal to grant national aid. This national aid has already been granted for too long as it is and has caused significant distortions of competition. As early as 1995 it was therefore decided to abolish it. It would, therefore, be a serious mistake if we were to reverse this decision of 1995, in the present time.
As far as Amendments Nos 33, 63, 64, 66, 76 and 77 are concerned, I can assure you that the Commission will make every effort to ensure the necessary coherence between the sugar proposals and development policy. There is therefore no need to spell this out in the proposals. Amendments such as Amendment No 20 for example, in which a derogation from the concept of a refinery is sought for the Azores, or Amendment No 36, which seeks to have quotas adjusted in order to fulfil the WTO requirements, must also be rejected. This is because our proposal already provides for an adjustment of this kind in Article 10.
Finally, I should like to reiterate my thanks for the work which you have done and hope that you will acknowledge that, in expressing its willingness to extend the system for more than two years, the Commission is, after all, also taking an important step towards accommodating Parliament's concerns.
I now turn to the content. What are the most important points in the proposal tabled by the Commission? The Commission believes that a fundamental reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector is necessary. Such a reform can, however, only be justified on the basis of a detailed analysis. That is why the Commission has ordered two studies, the results of which are expected to be available in mid-2002. The first study will examine concentration and competition conditions in the sugar sector, but not only in this sector, also in other large sectors of the agricultural and food industries. The second study will investigate the various possible options for a fundamental reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.
In the meantime, the Commission is proposing to extend the main mechanisms of the current organisation of the sugar market for two marketing years. In addition, it is intended to reduce the overall quota by 115 000 tonnes, which is 50% of the structural surplus under the WTO's export restrictions. Compensation for storage levies is to be abolished in order to increase competition and reduce the incentive to produce C sugar. This will also save the EAGGF EUR 300 million a year.
The requirement for producers to hold minimum stocks is to be abolished, since this is no longer justified in the light of the current supply situation in the Union. Finally, production refunds for sugar used in the chemical industry are, in the future, to be provided by the sector itself.
I now turn to the amendments to these Commission proposals. One group of amendments in Mr Daul's report basically seeks to extend the current arrangements for the sugar market for a period of five marketing years without introducing the changes proposed by the Commission; this is provided for in Amendments Nos 2, 15-18, 22, 26, 29, 68, 69, 70 and 71.
The Commission can agree to extend the current organisation of the market in sugar for a longer period than the proposed two years, but only if the remaining key points in the Commission's proposal are accepted.
The Commission cannot therefore accept a series of amendments for the following reasons. Amendments Nos 3, 4, 23, 24, 31 and 56 seek to leave the basic quotas and the estimated maximum supply requirements of the refining industry unchanged. This is unacceptable because the Commission's proposal to eliminate at least part of the structural surplus is essential in order to fulfil our obligations under the WTO. Neither is the Commission in a position to accept Amendments Nos 36, 45, 57, 60-62, 65, 67 and 72-75 because they would either increase the quotas even more, cut them very, very drastically or redistribute them.
Amendments Nos 1, 5, 8, 12, 13, 19, 25, 27, 28, 30, 39 and 40 seek to maintain the compensation for storage levies. I cannot accept this either because the abolition of the compensation system will create increased competition, remove the incentive to produce C sugar and, in addition, bring considerable savings of budgetary resources.
Amendments Nos 6, 21 and 40 provide for the minimum stock system to be kept. I cannot take this on board either because, given the extent of the current surpluses, a requirement of this kind is not justified. Amendment No 40 expresses the wish that the EAGGF should continue to participate in the funding of the production refunds for the first 60 000 tonnes of sugar used in the chemical industry. This would seem to me to be inappropriate because exemptions can no longer be justified within a self-financing system."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples