Dary (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we return, then, to the subject of the bananas COM.

Last April, after having voted through a very large majority of the amendments I was proposing to the Commission’s text but faced with the latter’s refusal to accept any of these, we decided to refer the matter to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development with a view to finding a possible compromise. Since there is no codecision procedure, it was the only way, since our priorities were to ensure guaranteed income and market access for both Community and ACP producers.

We tried to arrive at a conciliation with the Commission, but this did not really come about. Now, however, Parliament is to deliver its opinion. I would therefore remind you that, in November 1999, the Commission made its umpteenth proposal for modifying the COM in bananas, mainly with regard to external aspects and with a view to ensuring that this COM was compatible with the rules of the World Trade Organisation. At that time, the Commission proposed maintaining a non-discriminatory, fixed-quota system with a slight rating preference for the ACP countries and the transition to a ‘tariff only’ system in 2006.

In April 2000, Parliament adopted my first report, together with its amendments, which ran counter to the Commission’s proposal. In particular, the report proposed rejecting the automatic transition to a ‘tariff only’ system, a rating preference for the ACP countries of at least EUR 300 and an assessment and possible revision of the COM’s internal aspects.

The banana issue is a long way from being a mere anecdote and a great deal is at stake here. Since 1993, the situation where Community producers are concerned has been constantly deteriorating. The same applies to many traditional ACP supplier countries. Well, I would remind you that the main objective of this common organisation of the market is to guarantee access to the Community market for these countries’ products. It is now already impossible for these producers to enter into fair competition with international producers and operators in the sector. Let us remember that 62% of imports now come from third countries, mainly Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica and Honduras.

The idea here is not to be protectionist in defending products from certain countries but rather to safeguard the survival of a certain method of production. Behind the issue of bananas, an attempt is being made to defend an entire production industry, upon which whole regions, their life force and social balance sometimes depend.

Entire months elapsed before, last October, the Commission published a communication on the application of the ‘first come, first served’ method to administering the quota system. I emphasise that this was a communication and not a legislative proposal. We have therefore had to continue working on the November 1999 legislative proposal.

There has been liaison with the Commission, and it was clear from the last meeting that the Commission was maintaining its position, i.e. a quota system administered according to the ‘first come, first served’ method and a transition to a ‘tariff only’ system in 2006.

My second report therefore looks very much like the first and again takes up the amendments voted on in Parliament. Even in the absence of a legislative proposal, however, a pronouncement also needed to be made on the ‘first come, first served’ method. Codecision does not mean that the system is fair, but it means that it is the only method compatible with the rules of the WTO. However, the United States has already made it known that it rejects this system, as have the ACP countries, moreover. Other than that our position thus remains the same: apply the system for at least ten years in order to guarantee producers’ and operators’ legal security and then re-examine the system at the end of the ten years; no automatic transition to a ‘tariff only’ system; and a rating preference of EUR 300 for the ACP countries.

We have asked for guarantees in the event of the Commission putting in place the ‘first come, first served’ system for administering the rating quotas, for there would be serious repercussions for the ACP producers, who are at present incapable of taking their place in the boat race which is about to begin.

It is therefore crucial to find, in addition to the EUR 300 rating preference, a means of permitting them effective access to quota ‘C’ and of making an ongoing assessment of the impact of the system on these producers.

I am pleased that we have still been able to arrive at a unanimous vote within the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I should like to thank my colleagues, as well as Mr Fernández Martín, draftsman of the opinion for the Committee on Development and Cooperation, for his support.

To conclude, I should like to express my regret at the fact that, on a subject like this, the European Union appears to be abandoning its values in favour of the rules of world trade. The economy is there to serve man and, in any system in which man predominates, the rules should be adapted to the wishes and needs of man, never the other way around. The Commission and the Council would be abrogating their responsibility if they were to judge otherwise.