Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-17-Speech-4-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090917.2.4-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Members of Parliament for this very dedicated debate. I have actually listened very carefully. But of course I have also noted the different views that I have heard among the different Members of this Parliament.
Just on some of the promotion. We have already reserved EUR 14 million for promotion for the rest of this year. We have agreed on extending the school milk scheme; yogurt that is low in sugar – that is, containing no more than 7% sugar – will now be introduced into the school milk scheme. Labelling – I hear from different Members of Parliament that there is interest in a labelling system. Let us discuss that in the context of the quality paper that is actually on the table at the moment. So I think there are lots of possibilities.
Then, finally, on the food chain, I completely agree with you that that there is no transparency in this chain and we cannot see where the added value is disappearing. Therefore, I am looking forward to the presenting of this report before the end of the year so we can see what the situation actually looks like.
I must say that, if you look at the supermarket situation all over Europe, there are huge differences. Germany has a tradition or number of discount supermarkets. These supermarkets are using dairy or milk products, drinking milk as a
to get the consumers in, and they are offering a very low price but they are just handing over the bill to the farmers, paying them the low price. So, I think it would be very interesting and necessary to see what is actually happening in this chain, so let us get this transparency on the table and let us, internally in the Commission, but also in Member States’ competition authorities, look into the market.
It has been a very interesting discussion here today. I hope that you have noticed the short-term measures and the long-term measures that have been worked out together with France and Germany. I am sure that we will have some very interesting discussions on the future of the dairy sector in Europe because we all want our dairy sector to have a future.
As regards the quota system; it seems to be the scapegoat of this whole situation in which we find ourselves. I do not underestimate – and I have been very precise on this since the very beginning of the discussion – that the dairy sector, not only in Europe but globally, finds itself in an unprecedented crisis. That must be very clear. So I certainly do understand the frustration that I see among farmers in different parts of Europe, not all over, but in different parts of Europe.
The abolition of the quota system was decided back in 2003 so it is not a decision that was taken overnight while nobody knew what was happening. Then, in the health check, we had the discussion on increasing the quotas to try to find a soft landing for the dairy farmers.
But I think that those who want to point their finger at the quota system for being the reason for all the problems in which dairy farmers find themselves are wrong. Because we see that even with a quota system in place, we have not been able to maintain high prices and the structural changes in the dairy sector have taken place anyway. If you look at 1984, when the quota system was introduced, we had 1.6 million dairy farmers in the old EU-10. Today in EU-10 we have 300 000 dairy farmers: less than one fifth of the number of dairy farmers today compared to 1984 with a quota system in place. So these structural changes are taking place anyway.
I do not think that going back or rolling back the decision in the health check is the right policy, and here I am supported by all heads of state saying clearly in their decisions from the meeting in June that I have to stick to the decisions from the health check. I have never, ever, during the health check discussions, signalled any openness to roll back these decisions because that would certainly jeopardise predictability for farmers within the European Union.
But, José Bové, I think you said I had not been acting with preciseness; that is, the laissez-faire attitude. I do not think it is fair to say that we have been doing nothing. I am not going to repeat all the different measures that we have been taking. I think that, if Member States want to pay specific attention to the dairy sector, they now have the possibility with the health check to reallocate the direct payments so they give a special preference to the grassland areas. That is a possibility and I know that at least one big Member State has taken the opportunity to use this possibility, and for the mountainous areas there are lots of different possibilities.
We have production in Europe today that is 45% below quota, so what would happen if we actually wanted to cut quota by 5%? We would actually damage the situation for the young farmers that have invested in the future.
Therefore, I would recommend to those countries, those Member States, who really want to help their dairy sector that they use this buy-up of quotas from those who want to leave the dairy sector. That is a much better way of securing the maintenance of those who have invested while giving a helping hand to those that want to leave the sector. That is I think the right policy.
Could I then just correct the misunderstanding on the super levy? We are not introducing a new super levy system. We are just giving the possibility that, if Member States are buying up quotas from farmers, they can reduce the number of kilos or tonnes from their ceiling, but it is not a new super levy that will punish any of the farmers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"produit d'appel"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples