Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.20.2-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is today faced with the necessity of reforming its sugar sector. As we all know, this reform is unavoidable. It is necessary because we need to bring the common organisation of the market in sugar into line with the guiding principles of the new common agricultural policy. It is also necessary in order to adapt to the changing rules of world trade.
It is also essential that due and proper account be taken of the specific situations and constraints of the outermost regions. The growing and processing of sugar cane are essential to those regions and irreplaceable, in economic, social and cultural terms. In this connection, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for being such a good listener and for the efforts you have made to ensure that these regions receive special treatment, especially as regards compensation and sales aid. I am sure that such schemes, for which Parliament has called, will enable the people of those regions who make their living from sugar cane to look to the future with greater equanimity.
The third aspect of the reform is concerned with the sector’s future through the development of alternative outlets. In a world context characterised, on the one hand, by rising oil prices and, on the other, by the need to fight greenhouse gases, alcohol production in the sugar sector in fact offers a major asset for the development of alternative energies. In view of the impact of the reform of the COM on production levels, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development therefore proposes anticipating these trends by means of a proactive policy involving both the agricultural and the industrial aspects: the agricultural by means of measures to improve access to aid for energy crops in particular, the industrial by adapting the restructuring scheme to encourage the development of bioethanol distilleries. These tools form part of a coherent legislative proposal that would encourage the development of the bioethanol industry, a source of outlets for both farmers and manufacturers in the sector.
Finally, the fourth and last major thrust of our work, but not the least: prices. By contrast to the Commission’s original proposals, which would have a drastic effect on the sector, the rural fabric and the developing countries, the Committee on Agriculture in the end came out in favour of a slower and more moderate 30% reduction in sugar prices over four years. Such a level of price reduction would guarantee the reform’s economic effectiveness while helping to soften its impact on the sector’s players. In so doing, it would better guarantee continued activity in the production regions, safeguarding hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly related to the sector. This more moderate approach is also in line with the Community’s development commitments and will enable the ACP and LDC countries which export part of their production to the EU to continue to practice remunerative prices.
At the end of November, in anticipation of the World Trade Organisation conference in Hong Kong and without waiting for Parliament’s final vote, the Ministers of Agriculture of the twenty-five Member States reached an informal, provisional compromise on the main directions of the future reform. While the real purpose of that agreement was to arrive at a common political line, the way it was immediately exploited by the various signatories in the media as meaning that the reform had been settled ahead of schedule nevertheless sends a clear message: I believe it expresses the desire of the Commission and the Council to bypass the European Parliament, whose prior opinion is nevertheless mandatory before any decision is taken. In this respect, I find the procedure totally unacceptable and it must be condemned in the strongest terms.
However that may be, that compromise is now on the table and while it does not follow the Committee on Agriculture’s proposed amendments to the letter, it has to be said that, as it stands, it is a remarkable confirmation of how far the Council has moved from the original proposals.
The compromise marks an appreciable shift towards the more moderate and more balanced measures proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the four major topics I have just mentioned. In terms of regulation, it takes up the idea of maintaining the intervention system for four years, before moving to a reference price, which will mark the introduction of the logic of the market into the common organisation of the market in sugar. Secondly, and more importantly, it confirms the soundness of Parliament’s analysis regarding the need to retain some ability to manage the supply of sugar on the Community market. While the measures proposed are different, their philosophies converge along the lines of adapting the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative.
Concerning the implementation of European solidarity, the Council backs the increase in aid to farmers, proposing a compensation of 64.2% of lost earnings instead of the 60% initially proposed. It also takes up the idea of transferring to farmers 10% of the money provided for restructuring aid. Parliament’s proposal for a partial coupling and a modulation of aid for the less-favoured regions was not adopted, however.
Concerning the third line of approach, alternative outlets, the Ministers of Agriculture of the twenty-five Member States confirmed the possibility of a partial dismantling of factories, enabling bioethanol distilleries to be developed. Nevertheless, the hoped-for financial incentives for the development of energy crops have not materialised. Finally, in the field of prices, the 36% reduction over four years envisaged by the Council is not so quick or drastic as the initial proposals and is entirely consistent with the work done by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture.
Despite this undeniable progress, which must be welcomed, a number of proposals have not been taken up, in particular as regards tightening up the conditions that manufacturers will have to satisfy in order to qualify for restructuring aid. It is in this regard particularly regrettable that the Council has up until now disregarded all the social criteria that must be complied with and the fact that it is ultimately up to the Member States to approve or otherwise any cessations of production. Moreover, even if it means departing from what is, strictly speaking, the subject of this debate and of my reports, I really must at this point express my outrage at the way the ACP countries are treated. In the light of a reform, and in particular a price cut, the consequences of which will be disastrous for a great many of them, the sum of EUR 40 million allocated by the Council for 2006 can only be considered derisory and insulting. The European Union really will have to find the resources necessary to remedy this situation, which contrasts with what the Heads of State or Government have repeatedly said about helping the poorest countries to develop.
It is clear, ladies and gentlemen, that the Ministers of Agriculture will have to continue their efforts during the February negotiations if they are to reach a final agreement that is acceptable to all. With this in mind, I would like Parliament to vote in favour of the three reports before it with the largest possible majority in order to send a strong signal to the members of the Council so that the remaining gaps in November’s provisional compromise are closed and the COM in sugar is reformed in a way that is both fair and efficient.
All the same, we must not lose sight of the consequences of the coming changes for the men and women who make their living from producing sugar in the fields and factories of the Community and in the developing countries. With this in mind, it is important that the changes to the European sugar sector do not result in the dismantling of our common organisation of the market in sugar, in the gradual closure of our production capacity or in the sacrifice of our producers and those of the poorest countries in consequence of an uncontrolled opening of world trade. Reform is essential, that is true, but it will only meet its objectives if the quest for efficiency respects the requirements of social justice.
This twin perspective, which makes for balance, is the common thread running through the three reports on which the European Parliament is to vote this week and which were adopted almost unanimously by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 29 November last. These texts are the fruit of several months’ discussions and hearings in the Committee on Agriculture and of exchanges of views with yourself, Commissioner, with your services and with the various parties concerned in the industry. They represent a compromise negotiated and approved by a large majority of the political groups in this Parliament.
There are four major aspects to this compromise. The first is the introduction of flexible regulation of the sugar market. Flexibility, then, through the gradual introduction of market logic into the sector; I am referring to the reference price, which will make the sector more competitive. Regulation, too, however, to avoid the disastrous consequences of a totally deregulated sugar market.
Internally, this means maintaining the intervention system for a time so as to guarantee market stability during the next four years, which we all know will be difficult economically.
Turning to the external aspect of the reform, the need for regulation means keeping control of sugar imports from the least developed countries. It is in fact essential today that we take account of the damage caused by the uncontrolled opening of trade, as the recent example of the western Balkans has shown. With this in mind, in order to avoid any incentive for fraud once the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative has taken full effect, the Committee on Agriculture argues in particular for the establishment of a commercial safeguard in the form of a safeguard clause limiting exports according to the net exporter principle. This arrangement would enable us to prevent destructive triangular trade while ensuring for the least developed countries that their local populations working in the sugar-producing sector will actually benefit from the preferential trade regime with the European Union. It would not affect the growth prospects of the LDCs’ sugar industries and would be fully compatible with the objectives of the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative.
The second major theme of the compromise before Parliament is European solidarity with, in particular, the most fragile regions. While the establishment of trade regulation will allow us to stabilise markets and avoid excessive price fluctuations in the future, it must in fact be accompanied by measures to cushion the reform’s impact on the communities most affected by cessation of activity, above all those which are most fragile.
These include, first of all, farmers; they must receive substantial compensation for their loss of income, and some of the aid provided by the restructuring scheme should allow those who will lose their delivery rights and will be forced to make new investments in order to switch to other crops to be indemnified.
Then there are the people employed in sugar factories. They are totally dependant on the sector’s future restructuring, and it is essential, where there is cessation of industrial activity, that they be considered by strengthening the conditions that manufacturers will have to satisfy in order to receive aid from the restructuring fund. Finally, to avoid the most fragile regions being the main casualties of the restructuring of Community production, it is essential that the Member States should still have the final say over whether production ceases or continues on their territory."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples