Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-373"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.29.2-373"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, the reform of the market in starch is only a very small part of the reform of the common agricultural policy. Even though they are concerned with such a minor aspect of this policy, however, the report and its explanatory statement serve as an excellent example of the way in which individual countries are treated differently and incorrectly. Unfortunately, the candidate countries agreed to such treatment in their accession treaties.
Poland was a leading European potato producer for many years, taking second place only to Germany and France, and indeed this continues to be the case today. This is due both to agricultural traditions and consumer habits that go back many generations, and to Poland’s poor and sandy soil, in which farmers can grow only rye and potatoes. Poland’s starch production quota of 144 000 tonnes bears absolutely no relation to either the production potential of its 13 potato-processing plants, which is currently estimated at 220 000 tonnes, or to the amount of potatoes it grows. After all, more land is given over to growing potatoes in Poland than in any other country in Europe. This figure also bears no relation to the number of people either living in rural areas or working in agriculture.
Even though Poland is the third largest producer of potatoes, the limits imposed on it have meant that it has become a starch importer. The Polish Government therefore regarded it as only natural to submit justified proposals anticipating that the quotas, which had been underestimated and poorly negotiated, would be increased. In my opinion, no one should be ashamed of admitting a mistake. What is shameful, however, is to refuse to correct the mistake. The changes proposed amounted to a quota increase of only 40 000 for Lithuania and Poland together, even though 20% of the EU’s total quota, or in other words 200 000 tonnes, has not been filled in recent years. Although the amendments originally tabled by the rapporteur for the Committee on Agriculture reiterated the changes that had previously been proposed by the Lithuanian and Polish governments, however, they caused quite a stir. The Commission protested violently, and a long and heated debate was held in the Committee on Agriculture. At times I felt as though I was at a football match in which Poland and Lithuania, who have made the proposal, were on one side, along with the other new Member States, and the rest of Europe on the other.
Today we are debating the final version of this new report, which is the result of an ingenious compromise. My reason for dwelling on its history was to alert the House to an underlying problem that has now blown up in our faces, revealing the unequal treatment meted out to individual countries under the common agricultural policy. This inequality is a result of the mistakes made by those who negotiated the accession treaties, but it is also due to the changing face of agriculture and rural areas in Europe following enlargement and CAP reform.
My comments were also motivated by a desire to emphasise that the Wojciechowski report is both well thought-out and a good compromise, and that the rapporteur has managed to reconcile all the parties in this unnecessary conflict. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament, which I am representing, also lent its support to this compromise, which involves extending quotas for a further two years, or in other words until 2009, and sharing out the four-year quotas between Member States on the basis of the 2004-2005 quotas.
In common with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I do not believe that two years is long enough to allow us to assess the developments that have taken place in the market for starch following enlargement, and it is my opinion that unfilled quotas, which currently stand at 19% of the total, should be shared out between the new Member States. I must also thank the rapporteur, and emphasise that this is an example of a good compromise and an excellently drafted report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples