Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch"
Date: 2002-01-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: agricultural guidance, agricultural quota, potato, starch, tariff quota

C 80/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.4.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC)
amending Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the production
of potato starch’

(2002/C 80/11)

On 6 December 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Donnelly as rapporteur-general for its
opinion.

At its 387th plenary session held on 16 and 17 January 2002 (meeting of 16 January) the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 61 votes for and 1 abstention.

1. Gist of the Commission proposal

2. General comments

1.1.
The aim of this proposal for a regulation is to allocate
the three-yearly quota for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and
2004/2005 marketing years between potato-starch producing
Member States on the basis of the report from the Commission
to the Council on the quota system for the production of
potato starch, thus amending Regulation (EC) No 1868/94.

2.1.
In the audit by the European Court of Auditors of the
EU starch sector published on 1 October 2001 the Court of
Auditors does not object to the framework of the quota system
in the potato-starch sector. The Commission has come to the
same conclusions based on the information presented in its
own report and in particular as regards the market balance
between potato starch and cereal starch.

It is proposed that the present quotas be maintained

1.2.
for the next three years.

1.3.
If appropriate, account will be taken for each potato-
starch producer in each Member State of the amount by which
the quota was exceeded in the marketing year 2001/2002, as
provided for in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) 1868/94.

2.2.
The level of the quotas has been reduced following the
Agenda 2000 reform by 2,87 % for the smaller producing
countries and 5,74 % for the larger producing countries.
According to professional sources for the time being quota
and demand are in equilibrium. As indicated in point 1.2
above, the Commission proposes that the quotas will stay at
the same level for the period 2002-2005. The starch sector
supports the proposal. In case the market for potato starch
will grow further the industry would like an increase of the
quota after 2005.

The Commission proposal

1.4.
to extend the existing
quotas is subject to any measures, which might be needed on
the basis of the 2001 audit of the starch sector by the Court of
Auditors, an external consultancy study and the mid-term
review of the Agenda 2000 reform.

2.3.
The potato-starch industry is dependent upon the
contracted farmers for its raw material supply. Starch potatoes
are a very important crop for farmers. If there were to be in
the future a minimum price decrease for starch potatoes to
farmers, it would need to be compensated for. Farmers would
need this to continue in production. The basis should be the
text on the cereal sector as stated in the conclusions of the
1999 Berlin summit of the Council.

The Agenda 2000 reform involved changes to the
1.5.
In Article 7 of Regulation (EC)
payment
No 1868/1994 the wording compensatory aid should be
replaced by the wording payment.

terminology.

The 5 % flexibility clause should remain to take account

2.4.
of climatic change.

3.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 80/47

2.5.
It is crucial that the institutional equilibrium between
potato starch and maize starch will be guaranteed in the
future.

3. Conclusion

The ESC endorses the present Commission proposal for a
Council regulation.

Brussels, 16 January 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean
islands concerning certain agricultural products’

(2002/C 80/12)

On 26 November 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

On 27 November 2001, the Bureau of the Economic and Social Committee asked the Section for
Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment to prepare an opinion on the subject.

Owing to the urgent nature of the opinion, the 387th ESC plenary session of 16 and 17 January 2002
(meeting of 16 January) appointed Mr Papamichaïl as rapporteur-general and adopted his opinion by
68 votes for with three abstentions.

1.

Introduction — Background

1.1. When the European Council met in Rhodes on 2 and
3 December 1988, it recognised the difficulties certain of the
Community’s island regions have in making progress in their
economic and social development, owing to their isolation,
remoteness, small area, geographical relief, small-scale farming
activities, lack of economies of scale, dependence, high pro-
duction and transport costs and climatic conditions.

The Commission conducted a global study (1) of the
1.2.
specific problems of small Aegean islands (with a population
of under 100 000) and produced regulatory proposals for the
creation of a framework of agricultural measures to be financed

under the EAGGF — guarantee and guidance sections. These
proposals defined the overall strategy and practical measures
for tackling the problems.

On 12 February 1993, the Council asked the Economic
1.3.
and Social Committee for an opinion on the Commission’s
draft regulation. On 26 May 1993, the ESC assembly unani-
mously adopted the opinion, drafted by Mr Spyroudis (2).

1.3.1.
On 19 July 1993, having taken into account the
Commission’s proposal and the views of the European Parlia-
ment and the ESC, the Council published Regulation (EC)
No 2019/93 (3).

(1) COM(2001) 64 final of 7.2.2001.

(2) OJ C 201, 26.7.1993, p. 22.
(3) OJ L 184, 27.7.1993, pp. 1-7.