Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if the Commission’s proposed reform of the COM in bananas, seeking to replace the current system by ‘tariff only’, were implemented as it stands, it would lead to the disappearance of ACP producers in the short term and Community producers in the medium term. At the Seattle Summit and then at the Davos Summit, the people of Europe have been able to observe the inability of the WTO to reconcile financial priorities with their own priorities, which are living conditions, working conditions and the quality of the goods they consume. They would not appreciate it if their representatives not only called those values into question today, but actually went further and reneged, in passing, on the Union’s commitment to its ACP partners. The banana issue is a perfect example of the difficulties the Union is experiencing in establishing the European model the institutions evoke so often. In that connection the 1993 COM complied with four essential objectives: ensuring the free movement of bananas in the single market while maintaining reasonable prices for consumers, respecting the Union’s commitment to the ACP countries, maintaining Community preference for Union producers like Martinique, Guadeloupe, the Canaries, Madeira and Crete and, finally, respecting GATT obligations. Under constant attack since its adoption, this regulation eventually led to several WTO rulings against us, the latest in April 1999. Always quick on the draw, the United States immediately drew up retaliatory trade measures against Union countries. To comply with the WTO, the Commission is proposing to go over to a ‘tariff only’ formula, that is, eliminating quotas and introducing a flat rate tariff at an unknown level. As we know, this system has already been attacked by the majority of operators and producers from all geographic areas. We are right to question the grounds for an approach which involves changing the rules of the game in midstream, forcing producers to rethink their production plans and marketing forecasts. That has led us to identify reforms complying with the rules of international trade, but not just dictated by it. The stakes are high. Since 1993, the position of the Community producers has been constantly deteriorating. The same applies to many ACP countries, traditional suppliers. It is impossible for these producers to maintain fair competition with the great producers and operators in the international network. We should also remember that over 60% of the bananas consumed in the Union come from non-ACP third countries. It is not a question of practising protectionism, but rather of protecting the permanence of a certain method of production. It is not just the banana we are trying to defend, but a whole production network, which entire regions often depend on to survive. The margin of manoeuvre is technically narrow, but the choice of a reform model is political. We need to know what our objectives are. As I see it, the first priority is to defend the European model at the international level. That is certainly the position the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development unanimously adopted. Here I would like to thank all my colleagues very warmly for their effective cooperation on this issue, and Mr Westendorp and Mr Fernández Martín for their excellent work too. As there are no objective reasons for choosing ‘tariff only’, I propose to retain the first option in the Commission’s proposal, the ‘transitional’ option, and implement it without moving on to ‘tariff only’, but with a review of the operation of this reformed COM at the end of a ten year period. The ACP/European Union Partnership Agreement for Development, which replaces the Lomé Convention, provides for a ten-year transition period for the ACP countries, to allow them to conform as closely as they can to WTO rules. Why should it be any different for bananas? I also propose ensuring that the level of quotas will not increase the oversupply already noted, and finally, aware that the third quota will henceforth be open to all, I propose increasing the minimum preferential access rate for ACP products to EUR 300. In any case, accompanying measures are essential to ensure the permanence and viability of Community and ACP production. I have some suggestions: regionalisation of aid, so as to correct the discrepancies observed between the various areas of Community production, establishment of a cyclone compensation measure, a marketing aid to re-establish the balance with the distribution network for dollar bananas, special support measures for organic production and finally, an acceleration of aid provision. I hope Parliament will follow the line proposed by the Committee on Agriculture, but we also need the understanding of the Council and the Commission. Of course, this is not a codecision procedure and the Commission, naturally, can reject all our amendments. At a time when a code of good conduct is being set up between Parliament and the Commission, is it judicious to fail to take account of our opinion, and is it reasonable for either the Commission or the Council to neglect the opinion of the people we represent? (Applause)

Political group: PSE