Adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting President The Minutes of yesterday' s sitting have been distributed. Are there any comments? Zimmerling Mr President, last night, we were faced with the unwelcome news on EDF (German TV channel) that Mr Hombach, the EU Balkans Envoy, has been placed under investigation again by the Public Prosecutor. We have already had serious problems of this kind to contend with, as has the previous Commission, but in this particular case the accusation has been levelled that DM 300 000 were allegedly paid to an agency with nothing being received in return. I call upon you to inform the Council of this and to urge it to relieve Mr Hombach of all his duties until such time as this investigation has been resolved in a conclusive and legally valid manner. We cannot afford for the European Union to make a bad impression again. President We take note of your comments, Mr Zimmerling. McKenna Yesterday evening after the votes in the Chamber, a comment was made which I would like to distance myself from and not to be associated with. There was no mistake in the interpretation and Members of this House did refer to the Technical Group as the Technical Group of Racists. This was an unfair comment. No one could, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, consider someone like Emma Bonino a racist. People need to be extremely careful how they treat other people in this Chamber. Some people may not like the fact that the Technical Group has been set up, but it has been. These Members were elected just like me and every other Member in this House and we have to accept that fact. People have rights and I do not think that the comment that was made yesterday was acceptable. President We take note of your comments, Mrs McKenna. Seppänen Mr President, when, in the sitting on Monday, I thanked the French State, the city of Strasbourg and the European Parliament for the fact that we could only get sound on the Finnish television channel and that the taps runs cold water but not hot, I did not mean that this is how it should be, but that these things should be put right. I hope that the French State, the city of Strasbourg and the European Parliament will be able to take steps to put such small matters right in so expensive a building. President Very well, Mr Seppänen, we also take note of your comments. Bourlanges Mr President, on seeing the Minutes, I am horrified to note that I have once again failed to sign the register of attendance, although I participated in a quite considerable number of roll-call votes. I would ask that my attendance be recorded in yesterday' s Minutes. President That will not be a problem. Poettering Mr President, I do not have any comment to make on the Minutes, but I do want to say something about the European Parliament' s information services. I do not know whether I have picked the right moment to say this. It does not concern the Minutes, but relates to something else. Can I go ahead? Right then, a fellow MEP has just given me the session news about the debate we had yesterday on the Ludford report, and I am disappointed to note that it makes no mention of the statement I made on behalf of our Group. I would ask the parliamentary services to look into why it was left out. President I can assure you that the services will look into this very closely, Mr Poettering. Manders Mr President, further to yesterday' s minutes, I would like to express my great disappointment at the fact that even fewer than 200 Members attended the votes yesterday. I conclude this from the minutes. President Very well, Mr Manders, we take note of all of that. (The Minutes were approved) Vote Bordes Whether national or European, any central bank exclusively serves the interests of big investors. We refuse to make a choice between the different ways in which capitalist groups and wealthy investors manage their banking, since whatever they do is against the interests of the working classes and the majority of the population. Our abstention expresses our opposition to both the national and the European organisation of the banking system. Butel - (FR) The European Central Bank' s proposal induces us to reflect and to act prudently on two counts: Firstly, with regard to the method, it is clear that the procedure remains the same: the Community institutions present truncated reports, which minimise the consequences in terms of further loss of sovereignty for the Member States, and then proceed by means of successive small-scale tinkering. In this way, when introducing the euro, the Commission maintained that the sovereignty of the Member States was in no way threatened by the ECB, or the ESCB, which was set up to hold and manage Member States' official foreign reserves. However, they forget that, on the one hand, the national central banks manage these funds on behalf of the ECB, which has sole control of monetary policy. On the other hand, while Article 30(1) of the statutes of the ECB sets the maximum amount for reserve assets at EUR 50 billion, an amount considered sufficient to safeguard the independence of the ECB, two years later, the dogma of independence is looking to Article 30(4) to grant further assets, because it needs to increase its independence and credibility further ... It seems legitimate to ask ourselves whether we are throwing funds down a bottomless pit! Secondly, with regard to the content, the 'dressing up' of this new exorbitant demand should not fool us. It is not simply a question of giving more financial resources to an independent institution so that it can apply an effective monetary policy which benefits the Member States, but also of, indirectly, creating additional resources for a technocratic structure so that it may finance its ever greater operational needs. The issue therefore remains skilfully blurred; while the euro was intended to be 'strong and stable' and the reserve assets were originally intended to provide protection during the transitional period (should this prove necessary), it now appears that neither of these expectations has been fulfilled and Frankfurt is totally deadlocked! Consequently, another question arises regarding the effective use of financial resources. Why should the Member States give up their resources in favour of a Community institution which, as a result of its need to be independent, cannot be controlled? In conclusion, let us remember that a State is not defined in terms of the sovereignty it enjoys as a result of its autonomy of action. In fact, experience shows that its authority and credibility in the international arena depend very largely on its available resources: we must therefore take care, because to progressively deprive it of both would eventually cause it to cease to exist! CAP: information measures President The next item is the report (A5-0046/2000) by Mrs Izquierdo Rojo, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (COM(1999) 536 - C5-0249/1999 - 1999/0209(CNS)). Izquierdo Rojo Mr President, I am presenting a report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposal for a Council regulation with regard to information measures relating to the common agricultural policy. This report sets a precedent, as it is the first time that the Council has consulted Parliament on these measures. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has studied this legislative motion for a resolution extremely promptly and with great interest, and has approved it unanimously. I would like to highlight the following aspects of the amendments proposed by Parliament: First, in Amendment No 2, rural information and activity centres are included as possible agents for these measures. Secondly, the amendment refers specifically to the important role to be played by young farmers in the aforementioned measures. Thirdly, we indicate to the Commission the value of simplification and cutting through red tape, both in the examination of the programmes submitted and in subsequent monitoring. Fourthly, we single out countrymen and women, farmers and other parties active in rural areas as the ideal beneficiaries of these measures. On examination of our amendments, it is clear that they have a human aspect and allow a far more dynamic, open discussion. They avoid dealing with the CAP in a passive, purely bureaucratic and technological fashion. That is why we believe that Parliament's amendments improve the text. Fifthly, with regard to the cofinancing percentage, Parliament would like the Commission to be able to increase this percentage, increasing financing for organisations or associations with few financial means. Sixthly, we already know that, according to the proposal, commitment appropriations provide EUR 4.5 million annually through the EAGGF, which implies EUR 27 million for the current period, 2000-2006. However, the proposal made by Parliament indicates that the European Commission should adapt the budgetary allocation to the large number of organisations entitled to participate under this regulation. Finally, Mr President, I would like to highlight the contribution of Amendment No 10, which proposes a new Article 5a, defining the following criteria to be met by programmes or measures eligible for funding: that these programmes should foster sustainable, multifunctional farming; they should serve to maintain or create jobs; they should promote social and regional cohesion; they should give a more prominent role to women and young people; they should protect the environment and safeguard the water supply, air quality and soil quality; they should treat agricultural waste and control energy expenditure, in the countryside and in transport. In our opinion, these are proposals that should promote rural development and improve food safety and product quality. The European Parliament would like the Commission to make these priorities, which are priority objectives for agriculture in 2000, easier to visualise in these next information measures. Mr President, that is all I have to say. I would like to thank all the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for the support and collaboration they have given me at all the meetings we have held. I would also like the European Commission, in one way or another, to take account of Parliament's criteria. Fiori Mr President, this is a very specific instrument which is of major importance for all citizens. However, it is the farmers who have to be its protagonists. Our position on the proposal for a regulation on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy can be summarised as follows: after the period of DG VI management and dependence on EAGGF-Guidance, a window of further transparency has at last been opened, and it must not be allowed to close. The common agricultural policy is an instrument for farmers: it is a basis from which to provide farmers with a broader understanding of their overall role, both in respect of the consumer and in terms of the major environmental issues. It is also the means of increasing awareness, among farmers, of current situations and, in particular, of the requirements of European society as a whole. All too often, we have heard speeches extolling the virtues of the CAP' s role in production, the environment and consumer and agricultural protection. On many occasions, these words proved to be an end unto themselves and did not provide specific occasions for taking up the opportunities offered. This regulation is our chance to send a clear message to the farming world. This is why we do not understand why the CAP should be extended to include all the consumer and environmental associations, which can claim no rights and have no responsibilities as regards measures of this type. Should we pass up this opportunity, we will miss another chance to target the objectives of growth, shared responsibility, multifunctionality and quality improvements, which are the basis of the European measures envisaged for the agricultural sector. We are also concerned at the poor level of funding available to implement the programme. This is all the more reason why the policy should not be broadened to include as many potential tenderers as possible, but rather, in the light of what has just been said regarding determining who represents agriculture, this extension must lead to the judicious, appropriate allocation of funding to the destination indicated in the very title of the programme, the common agricultural policy, where the term "agricultural" is a decidedly operative word. If we were to take a different path, we would only be contributing to highlighting the existence of a tangle of roles, which would be of no benefit to either farmers or consumers. On the other hand, this major programme is an opportunity for responsibilities to be defined and recognised, in order to provide the farming world with a genuine opportunity to take the lead in the changes taking place. However, in all this, we must not forget or overlook the merits of the other organisations which have taken up parallels with the world of agriculture production and interpreted them to best advantage, without mentioning the fact that this broadening out to embrace other activities in itself represents a development of areas of potential recognised by the Union. The transfer from EAGGF-Guidance to EAGGF-Guarantee is another consoling aspect, in terms of attaining the objectives already outlined, providing both the possibility of tracking funds to their destination and, in particular, to the objectives which we want to achieve. Alongside all this, in consolidation of the positions expressed, the true focus of the programme must not be forgotten: the involvement of the farmers themselves in adopting a more resolute stance on the validity of the instruments introduced under the reform of the common agricultural policy. Today, this instrument appears to be fully understood by most of the farming world, but not all. It is probably this element which is most attached to conventional schemes that are difficult to reconcile with the rapid, revolutionary changes which we are witnessing. But it is an element which the Union itself intends to adapt more closely to current conditions and manoeuvre towards the euro, globalisation and the open market, and also towards those market niches which are characteristic of economically sound areas which must be developed still further. In line with this rationale, a parallel with the development of rural tourism springs to mind. Rural tourism is a source of income and, at the same time, a means of protecting a citizen' s land. It is proposed as a driving force that will speed up the passage to a European agriculture which encompasses as wide a range of production possibilities and sources of income as possible. Rural tourism not only meshes well with organic production, but also complies with the highest of product quality standards recognised by the European Union. Factors such as these confirm the integration of agricultural policy with the other forms of economic and social development of the European Union. Busk Mr President, as high a priority as possible ought to be given to transparency and to keeping EU citizens informed of the work being done in the EU. Providing factual and objective information about cooperation in Europe has become very important in recent years as we face considerable challenges with the extension of the EU into Central and Eastern Europe. It is especially important to explain what the common agricultural policy is about and to provide information about objectives, resources and potential for development. There are many target groups - farmers, first and foremost, but also people generally, as well as everyone directly or indirectly affected. If this work is to succeed, it is important that cooperation should be established with the farming organisations and also with consumers. The common agricultural policy was the first, and is also the most extensive, of the Community' s integrated policies and it accounts for a very large proportion of the EU' s budget. It is, therefore, also important to make it clear that the subsidy arrangements ensure that consumers obtain food at prices which, as a result of the subsidy, are lower than they would be without the subsidy. This means that the EU' s agricultural arrangements are of benefit to all EU citizens. The common agricultural policy is always undergoing change and development. It demands a great deal in terms of the supply of information and, especially, in terms of the coordination which is needed if cooperation is to succeed, both within the Member States and independently of the Member States. Circumstances are very different from one country to another, and it ought, therefore, to be farming organisations which are among the main players, because these organisations focus primarily upon farmers. Graefe zu Baringdorf Mr President, first of all my Group would like to say how very grateful it is to the rapporteur, Mrs Izquierdo, for this report. It represents the attempt we need to give the financing for groups and associations in the EU agriculture sector a legal basis. This budget line has always been there, only there were no legal safeguards, and the Court of Auditors criticised us for this. In producing this legal standard, the Commission has now put the matter to rights. The only difficulty regarding implementation resides in the fact that the Commission is now to lay claim to a large portion of the budget for its own information measures - or so the report says - when previously, the budget was available in its entirety to the associations in varying amounts. We have reason to fear that these funds are now to be withheld from the associations, and that is not a very happy turn of events. Secondly, it used to be the case that the money was made available to the associations and it was for them to draw up their own criteria as to how the money should be spent. This was, and continues to be, an unacceptable practice, and it is therefore right and proper that the criteria are now to be stipulated. However, precise rates of interest are now to be fixed for the financing - Mrs Izquierdo has already made reference to this - which will mean that small associations having limited financial resources will be deprived of the opportunity to delve into this pot because they do not have their own resources. The smaller, weaker associations will therefore be at a disadvantage. That is why we welcome with open arms Mrs Izquierdo' s proposal that the possibility of full financing be allowed for where there is evidence that the measures meet the criteria, and where there is financial weakness - which may be the case throughout the region - so as to avoid these areas being completely left out. All in all, our Group welcomes the fact that we are now to get a legal basis, and also supports the proposed amendments tabled by the rapporteur. Figueiredo Mr President, the purpose of information on the common agricultural policy should be to establish a strategy for communication, directed mainly at those working in farming and rural areas. In our opinion, the main criticism of this proposal for a Commission regulation relates to the opening up of a budget line to non-agricultural organisations and also the reduction in budget appropriations to EUR 4 500 000. This situation has been made even worse by the reserve of appropriations that the Commission is building up for itself, which, when taken in conjunction with specific actions, in fact leaves the organisations with only EUR 3 million, which is obviously a very limited amount. I therefore welcome the rapporteur' s proposal that the Commission should match the budgetary appropriations to the numerous organisations that have a right to funding under this regulation. However, another negative aspect of the Commission' s proposal relates to limiting cofinancing to a rate of 75%, when actions implemented directly by the Commission are financed at a rate of 100%. Furthermore, we know that the draft guide to the rules makes access to the budgetary line I have just mentioned even more difficult for organisations, especially those in a weaker financial position, in other words, exactly the ones that need the most support. Hence the importance of our amendment designed to supplement the concept set out in the report. With our amendment, we hope to see Community cofinancing rise above 75% for organisations representing small farmers and family-run farms in financial difficulty. We hope that this amendment will be adopted. With regard to the amendment designed to reduce funds intended for the Commission by EUR 1 million and instead increase specific actions, we feel that this is potentially a way of improving the Commission' s proposal for a regulation. Lastly, it is important to emphasise the need for the Commission to simplify its administrative procedures both in order to study the programmes presented by the organisations and for their future monitoring. McCartin Mr President, I welcome this measure. From an administrative point of view the formalisation is a good thing. But when we come to think about it the amount of money is quite small - EUR 27 million over a period of six years. Considering the size of the agricultural budget and the fact that it extends to every corner of the Union, it is a relatively small amount of money. That is why I welcome that fact that most of it will be spent at the rate of 50% rather than 75%. The more of it that is spent at the rate of up to 50%, the further the money goes and the greater the impact. The common agricultural policy gets a lot of criticism. One of the things that was not widely understood was the importance of this policy from a social point of view: the fact is, that in all the depressed regions of the Union, the common agricultural policy has maintained the population and supported communities, in a social sense, that would not otherwise have survived. This is particularly true of the peripheral countries such as Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal, where communities that would have disappeared have been supported and maintained, if not for ever, certainly until a change in economic environment, until the new technologies arrived. The long-term effect of the common agricultural policy in that sense will be greater than people have often imagined. I have no fault to find with the way the Commission interacted with the agriculture industry over the years. From my experience the European Commission was more open to representations and information exchange with the agriculture industry than most departments of agriculture in most Member States. The Commission taught Member States over the years how to be open with very limited resources. But there are new pressures, arising out of consumer concerns about new processes and systems of producing food. These have to be explained, not only to farmers, but to consumers as well. There is a lot of mythology about what is safe and what is not safe. We have an important job to do to explain the workings of the whole productive system to the consumers of Europe and those outside the Union who will buy our food. It is important that we apply as many resources as possible to this. The last point I want to make is that, arising from these pressures, we will have a reaction from agriculture. As we inevitably wind down some of the supports in the process of enlargement and, at the same time, maintain the pressures to protect the environment and the consumers, then there will be friction between the producers and the European administration. To devote as many resources as possible to good relations is a wise policy. Liikanen Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Maria Izquierdo Rojo, and the members of the Committee, for their report. The proposed regulation intends to provide the Commission with a tool to help it to present an operational model for European agriculture, and give wider publicity to the common agricultural policy. In this way, the implementation of agricultural policy is facilitated. Now I would like to speak about Parliament' s proposed amendments. They are not generally aimed at changing the subject matter but rather at amending the proposals. Amendments Nos 2 and 6 concern organisations falling within the scope of aid. It is the opinion of the Commission that it is not necessary to mention the groups and organisations by name. All agricultural organisations and rural players fall within the scope of aid according to Article 2. This being the case, the proposed addenda are unnecessary. Amendments Nos 5, 8 and 10 concern measures that are eligible for aid. Amendment No 5 contains amendments regarding information services and fora for discussions for men and women in rural areas. They are unnecessary, as they are already contained in the Commission' s proposal. One of them, which reads "supporting them in their choices" is not in harmony with the Commission' s proposal. The purpose of this regulation is not to offer farmers any special services. Local bodies are better qualified to do that. The resources available would not be sufficient for that either. I would, moreover, like to make the comment, with regard to the amendments tabled for Article 3, that information visits are not being ruled out. The list of activities that are eligible for aid is not exhaustive, which is indicated in the word "particularly" . The Commission is prepared, however, to adopt this amendment. The funding of long-term exchange programmes cannot, however, be accepted, as such action is not a part of the information policy. Amendment No 10 concerns Article 5. The Commission supports the objectives mentioned here, proof of which is to be seen in the fact that they are implicitly contained in Article 1, which concerns the operational model for European agriculture. That is why it makes no sense to repeat the contents of the model in further detail. Amendments Nos 7 and 13 concern contributions. The Commission thinks that it is not desirable to pay more than 75% of eligible aid costs. The funds available are modest. The lower the contribution stays the more measures there will be that can be financed and the greater the multiple effect. Amendments Nos 9 and 12 concern the allocation and approval of appropriations. As we know, Parliament is a budgetary authority together with the Council. For this reason, the Commission thinks Amendment No 9 is not necessary. Regarding Amendment No 12, which proposes including the allocation of appropriations in the regulation, I would say that if the allocation is settled on beforehand, the administration of the budgetary heading will lose its vital degree of flexibility, which might be damaging from the point of view of proposed applications for financing. Amendment No 11 concerns evaluation. The Commission agrees with Parliament on the usefulness of regular evaluation. It can best be taken account of in the implementing regulation. Amendment No 4 concerns administration. This extra recital is unnecessary in the regulation, in the opinion of the Commission. Provision for administrative details, evaluation and later assessment will be laid down by the Commission in the Implementing Regulation. In this connection, it has to be said that the effective monitoring of public funds has to be assured in the process regardless of how open and simple the process is. Amendments Nos 1 and 3 concern linguistic nuances. These the Commission does not consider significant, as Recitals 4 and 7 in the Commission' s proposal are not as restrictive. President Thank you, Commissioner. The debate is closed. We shall now proceed to the vote. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) Grain legumes President The next item is the report (A5­0045/2000) by Mrs Izquierdo Rojo, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1577/96 introducing a specific measure in respect of certain grain legumes [COM(1999)428 - C5­0187/1999 - 1999/0182(CNS)] Izquierdo Rojo Mr President, I am presenting a report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1577/96 introducing a specific measure in respect of certain grain legumes. The European Parliament has been analysing this proposal since October 1999 and approved this draft legislative resolution unanimously on 23 February 2000. I would like to highlight the following aspects of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament. First, Amendment No 1 on the inclusion of a Recital 2a. This amendment supplements the Council approach, which is purely commercial, and opts for a proposal with wider economic, human and food quality aims. Whereas the Council only talks about the market, the European Parliament highlights the economic interest for the Community of the production of these grain legumes. Given the deficit of protein crops in the European Union, Parliament considers that this system should be improved without cutting the level of aid. Secondly, Parliament' s Amendment No 2 proposes that seed vetches should also be included in the aid system. Aid for seeds already exists for rice, chickpeas and lentils. We propose this aid because, as we all know, the production of seeds is subject to supplementary technical and quality control requirements, so that if the cultivation of seeds were not supported by some form of aid, this could have extremely negative consequences for the quality of production of seed vetches. Thirdly, Amendment No 3 indicates that, in our opinion, the Commission should, without further delay, make proposals for the 2000-2003 period. Before I finish, Mr President, I would like to point out that in 1993 - which is some time ago now - the Council indicated that it intended to gradually strengthen the current aid system for grain legumes. However, this has still not been done. Secondly, successive periods show that we are faced with a chronic imbalance in this system. The maximum guaranteed area is being systematically reduced, thus penalising time and again the farmers who are suffering reductions in aid of up to 20%. Therefore, Mr President, what the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament would really like to see is an improvement in the system. However, we appreciate what the Commission is telling us, that this is a time of serious budgetary restrictions that we could not implement without reducing aid. That is why we are presenting this proposal, which is really a maintenance proposal, and what we are saying to the Commission is that, without further delay, proposals must be drawn up at the latest for the 2000-2003 period to achieve an improvement in this system without decreasing aid. I thank all the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their collaboration and support, as well as the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. Thanks also to the Commission for its willingness to hold a dialogue and I hope it will be open to our proposals. Avilés Perea Mr President, Commissioner, the report that is being proposed for approval today in plenary refers to a minimal reform of Regulation 1577/96 on aid for the grain legume sector. So slight is the reform that it does not amend the total maximum guaranteed quantity, although it does split it into two, nor the amount of aid per hectare. The only new element is the substitution of the management committee by the cereal management committee. As the Spanish saying goes, which is very much in agreement with this regulation, 'Esto son lentejas; si quieres las tomas y si no las dejas' [ 'here are some lentils, take them or leave them' ]. Consequently, my Group will support the rapporteur's report and, above all, will particularly support Amendment No 2, which proposes the inclusion of areas dedicated to the production of seed vetches in the aid system, as this will lead to high-quality crops. Nevertheless, I would like to make it clear that we have missed the opportunity to support a substantial, very arid area of southern Europe, which has no other crop alternative for its soil. Furthermore, the demand for vetches for feeding livestock is increasing all the time, as shown, at least in Spain, by the fact that the area sown in the last three years has exceeded the proposed maximum guaranteed area by 100 000 hectares per year on average. On the other hand, the food problems we have had in the European Union have been caused by feeding herbivores with animal-based feedingstuffs, and if we do not encourage the feeding of livestock with plant proteins, such as legumes, and lower their price, farmers will continue to resort to animal meal due to the enormous pressure of competition. Finally, it just remains for me to lament, once again, the fact that the Commission's agricultural policy is more concerned with reducing spending - or, at best, not increasing it, as on this occasion - than with maintaining a genuine European agricultural sector that is so essential for the equilibrium of the region. Martínez Martínez Mr President, I am participating in this discussion in order to support the report by my colleague, María Izquierdo, whose proposals, like those of the Commission, seem to me to be beneficial and of interest. Grain legumes are a traditional crop in certain areas of southern Europe, including Spain and, more specifically, Castilla-La Mancha, the region I come from, which contains one third of the total area dedicated to these crops in Spain. Our concern is therefore to avoid damaging the aid system for this sector of agriculture and, more specifically, for the production of chickpeas, lentils and vetches. Chickpeas and lentils are two essential products in Spanish gastronomic culture and in our diet, the Mediterranean diet, which is now so highly thought of by scientists, which includes dried pulses in our traditional recipes. The purchase of dried pulses in Spain has been increasing by up to 5% annually. In my country, the consumption of these is 6.5 kg per head annually and anyone who knows how these products are cooked can vouch for the fact that this is a very substantial amount. Religious customs, for example, mean that we do not eat meat during Lent and due to the wiliness and common sense of our compatriots, meat has been replaced by other dishes - delicious dishes, of course - such as our lentil and spinach stew. We are talking about uses that have been consolidated throughout history and are now consumed throughout the year, including by non-believers and those who do not practise a religion, and that have left an almost infinitely varied series of main courses based on dried pulses, which undoubtedly increase the consumption figures. Another sector which requires this type of product is livestock farming. At times like this, when we are seeing fraudulently-fattened livestock and the use of unauthorised products, it becomes essential for the market to provide reasonably-priced, good quality natural feedingstuffs, such as some of those that this regulation concerns, and specifically vetches. Finally, we are talking about Community protection for a crop which last year, in my region, provided an honest living for around 17 000 families. Moreover, this is a sector in which, fortunately, there has not been a proliferation of bounty-hunters who move into agriculture in order to receive grants from the Union. Here we are dealing with traditional crops farmed by people who devote themselves to these crops from generation to generation, and who have contributed to the formation of a large part of the countryside and cuisine of substantial regions of Europe, which still interest us and which we should maintain. I am therefore asking for the support of Parliament for the Commission's proposals and the improvements which, by way of amendment, are contained in María Izquierdo's report. Busk Mr President, we are able to support an extension to the proposal but, at the same time, I would draw attention to the fact that Agenda 2000, which was decided upon last year in Berlin, is based, of course, upon our looking towards free trade and endeavouring to reduce the present level of aid and to reach a number of agreements under the aegis of the WTO whereby, by virtue of market mechanisms, we can obtain greater access to the many markets out in the world. I would also draw your attention to the fact that, in recent years, conventional farming has been put under pressure. Prices have fallen for just about every product. This is what some people call stability. Farmers experience it somewhat differently because costs are, of course, rising and price freezes will therefore automatically be experienced as a setback. I would also recall the fact that the Commission has recently tightened up on the conditions for intervening in the area of grain. Wheat growers, in particular, will be affected very badly, which they already are because of a 15% fall in prices, but then there is also a tightening up on quality and with regard to the issue of protein crops. This means, moreover, that, especially in the northern part of the EU, there will be further price falls in the offing. On behalf of my Group, I shall, as I said, support an extension to the arrangements, but I would strongly urge the Commission, before 2002-2003, to make a concerted effort to investigate possible changes to the way in which we employ resources so that we can, in the future too, safeguard that group of farmers which, until now, has been supported by means of the aid arrangements in question. Figueiredo - (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we must support the production of grain legume crops by improving the system without reducing the level of aid, given the current shortfall in grain legumes both for human consumption and animal consumption. The fact is that the system of aid established in 1989 has been modified several times, but no report has been presented on the application of the present system. Now, by advocating a maximum guaranteed area of 400 000 hectares, the Commission wants to reduce the average production area over the last three years by around 100 000 hectares, which will mean considerable reductions in aid. On the other hand, although we do not disagree with splitting the maximum guaranteed area into two, we feel it is necessary to adjust the historical reference period in order to calculate each of the maximum guaranteed areas excluding the last three years, in order to reduce the damaging impact for Portugal on products designed for human consumption. Finally, it is important to point out that it is vital for Portugal that dry bean should be considered in this system, even without the change to the maximum guaranteed surface. We therefore firmly believe that the Commission should bear in mind these amendments to the new system which it hopes to establish for grain legumes. Liikanen Mr President, I would again like to thank the rapporteur, Maria Izquierdo Rojo, for an excellent and constructive report. There are two Commission documents that serve as a basis for the issue of grain legumes. The first is a report on the aid scheme in place for grain legumes, and the second a proposal for improved administration of the system. What vegetables are we actually talking about? I know that the Spanish members know the subject well, but I should mention that by grain legumes are meant three annual vegetables with a high protein content and which are gathered in the form of dry seeds. Lentils and chickpeas serve as food for humans, while the seeds of vetches, which to us are more unusual vegetables, are used as animal feed. Grain legumes are grown as field crops, particularly in the southern part of the Union, as they thrive well in dry climates. In fact Spain accounts for 90% of all EU grain legume production. Grain legumes are not covered by the aid scheme that was remodelled with the Agenda 2000 programme, although they can be used in crop rotation schemes involving other crops such as corn. Grain legumes are covered by their own scheme where the amount of fixed aid per hectare is EUR 181 and the maximum guaranteed area is 400 000 hectares. The scheme was established in 1989 when the growing area of grain legumes was reduced at the expense of corn, which was already suffering from overproduction. The special scheme aimed to preserve traditional legume grain growing areas by means of the aid per hectare arrangement. What are the conclusions of the Commission' s report? An examination of how the scheme has been applied reveals that the MGA of 400 000 hectares has been systematically exceeded. There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. First, the aim of the scheme has been successfully achieved and, second, the growing areas have to be brought under better control. The MGA overruns in the last few years have shown themselves to be mainly with regard to vetches. Although the scheme is being applied satisfactorily as a whole, MGA management is problematic, as those responsible for the overruns are not being treated any differently from other producers. So how could the system be improved? We should aim to find solutions regarding improvements within the framework of the present scheme and the appropriations set aside for it. We are in a situation in which the Agenda 2000 reform has been adopted and international trade negotiations are drawing closer. I would like to point out that the rapporteur' s proposed amendment whereby the current aid scheme for vetch farmers could be combined with another market arrangement, i.e., that for seed vetches, would not achieve the improvement desired. This is a reference to Amendment No 2. It cannot be adopted for two reasons: firstly, the schemes are mutually exclusive, as in one scheme the seeds, in principle, have to be harvested as animal feed, while, in the other, they are designated for sowing. The other reason is that it might involve extra expense. The Commission' s report recommends that the MGA should be divided into two parts based on the earlier land area division in the proportion 40/60. It would divide up thus: 1 600 000 hectares would be used for the production of lentils and chickpeas, and 240 000 hectares would be used for the production of vetches. In addition, it is proposed that the Management Committee for Dried Fodder be replaced by the Management Committee for Cereals. The purpose of this change is only to legally endorse what has become common practice on the committees. Finally, I would like to say that the Commission will adopt the rapporteur' s amendments that reinforce its position, proposing that the Commission submit a new report, as in Amendment No 3, and seek ways of improving the system, as in Amendment No 1. Members of the European Parliament, in the light of my comments, the proposal will probably not be difficult to adopt so that it can be applied from the marketing year 2000 - 2001 onwards. President Thank you, Commissioner. The debate is closed. We shall now proceed to the vote. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) Additionality President The next item is the debate on the following oral questions to the Commission: B5-0207/2000, by Mrs Evans and others, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, on additionality B5-0209/2000, by Mr Davies and Mrs Attwooll, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, on the additionality principle in Structural Fund appropriations. Evans, Jillian Mr President, Commissioner, the purpose of the Structural Funds is to target the poorest and most run-down areas of the European Union, those in greatest need of development, with extra money to help them begin to rebuild the economy, create jobs and regenerate poorer communities. Additionality is meant to ensure that happens and to prevent governments from using EU funding to replace their own aid as this would defeat the object. But in many regions and nations that is what happens at the moment and I can illustrate the problem using the example of Wales. The granting of EU Objective 1 status to West Wales and the Valleys last year was an acknowledgement of the poverty in two-thirds of the country. EUR 1.2 billion of European funding used effectively could provide exactly the additional help that is intended. But if we look at the government budget to Wales, in practice there will be no more government spending next year with Objective 1 than there is this year before Objective 1. The National Assembly budget which comes from the Treasury remains the same so that in the first fifteen months, at least, of the new programme period there are no additional resources at all. The money will be taken from other budgets in the National Assembly, such as health and education. Therefore central government expenditure is reduced. Under the Structural Funds, areas of greatest need are identified and selected on regional criteria. Yet when the Commission looks at additionality it is dealt with on a Member State level. This is a clear contradiction. The rules as they stand allow this to happen. Member States are not legally required to demonstrate additionality at the regional or programme level. I agree with the statement made by Commissioner Barnier in a written reply to me when he said that the spirit of additionality rather than the letter of the law on the matter is an important consideration. We need the revision of the system and a central part of that is looking at additionality internally in the Member States at the programme level as well as at the Member State level. Mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that Member States respect the principle and the spirit of additionality so that funds are targeted and spent effectively. So we are asking in this question, Commissioner, for confirmation that this will be done and I look forward to the vote on this debate in April. Liikanen Mr President, the principle of additionality exists in order to ensure that transfers to the Member States under the Structural Funds add to, rather than replace, national expenditures on structural development measures. In this way, European Union structural policies will have a greater impact on reducing regional and social disparities. The ex-ante verification of additionality is at present being undertaken in application of Article 11 of Regulation 1260/99. This is an integral part of the negotiation of the Structural Funds programmes with the Member States. This exercise is a demonstration of the Member States' intention to implement the principle of additionality over the programming period that lies ahead. Where necessary, the Commission may request clarification from the Member States on the details of their forecasts for eligible expenditure for the period 2000-2006. As a further measure, the Commission has prepared detailed implementing provisions for inclusion in the programming documents covering both the situation ex ante and also the mid-term and final verification of additionality. The second issue covered by the questions is the possibility of the verification of additionality at regional level. I would like to develop a number of elements of previous answers. Firstly, although additionality is implemented at the level of the overall eligible spending by the Member States rather than at regional level, it must be borne in mind that the overall additionality required to be demonstrated is, by definition, the sum of the eligible expenditures at the lower level. In practice, reduced national eligible expenditure in some regions would have to be balanced with an increase in other regions in order for additionality to be respected overall. On this point the Commission can give a clear assurance that, where evidence exists of reduced national expenditure in a given region or regions, it will be particularly attentive with regard to the credibility of the overall figures. A second point of clarification concerns the scope of additionality and the suggestion that, when implemented at national level, it may be incompatible with the regional vocation of the Structural Funds. It must be borne in mind that the development-related expenditure of a Member State which is taken into account for the assessment of additionality is generally a mixture of resources allocated and managed at national level and those managed at regional level. While there might be some categories of expenditure for which stability could be expected at regional level between the programming periods, it could hardly be suggested that the level of spending on, for example, major infrastructure should be maintained at the same level in each region regardless of current needs. This is why the Commission takes the view that the strict application of additionality at regional level would lead to excessive rigidity in the management by the Member States of their own development expenditure. Finally, regarding budgetary provisions within the Member States between the central government and the regions, the Commission can only repeat that these are matters exclusively for national consideration and are not related to additionality as defined in the regulations. Evans, Jonathan Mr
{'language': 'en'}