Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-293"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.22.2-293"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement on the sugar COM has been called a historic agreement and a brave and bold decision on a situation that has remained crystallised for too many years. It has been said that action was needed today because it implies being able to find the necessary funds to carry out this painful but absolutely essential restructuring and to guarantee not only compensation for the farmers concerned, but also the long-term sustainability of the sector. This new policy will encourage trade and will strengthen the European Union’s negotiating position at the WTO meeting to be held in Hong Kong next month.
With this reform, the European Union will certainly be an attractive market for developing countries, to which they can export their sugar, although I personally believe that we shall lose a great deal in terms of quality and consumer health guarantees. In this respect, Commissioner, perhaps we need to take a tougher, more prudent and more cautious line. Lastly, this agreement will enable the European Union to offer its ACP partners financial assistance to adapt to the changes, but it will certainly end up simply protecting France and Germany, as always.
While expressing my great appreciation for the work done by the rapporteur and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I do not wish to linger over the terms of the agreement, which are now familiar to everybody. Once again, however, I must point out the extent to which the role of the European Parliament has been undervalued, in that all too often it has been bypassed by the Council and by the Commission itself.
While hoping, therefore, that the amendments to improve the text are accepted, I want to say how baffled I feel, since there has been no attempt at all to take a bolder stand on the CAP in order to ensure that the European Union has the energy independence that it needs, by focusing on alternative energies or energies integrated with oil, such as energy from biomass, as Professor Prodi maintained as well.
By transforming biomass, we can achieve earnings that far outweigh the losses on sugar. Is the Commissioner aware of that? Is the Commission? I believe it would be worthwhile for the European Union to invest in the biomass transformation sector which, incidentally, is a technology that produces hydrogen directly. Two tonnes of dry biomass, in fact, produces the same heat as one tonne of oil, but while the potential cost of biomass is EUR 200 per tonne, oil costs about EUR 400 per tonne. Let me give you an example: Italy would save about EUR 12 billion and Europe EUR 120 billion. With that we could implement a policy that combines the goals of reform with those of social justice in the best way possible and without unexpected and excessive trauma. We could adopt proactive, positive measures for the environment, for farmers and for the producers themselves, without promoting a benefit culture and, what is more, without losing jobs."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples