Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.10.2-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, I wish, first of all, to congratulate the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, in particular its rapporteur, Mr Parish, on the timely initiative to bring the debate on this issue to the European institutions. It is 32 years since Sicco Mansholt, the Commissioner responsible for agriculture from the time the Commission was formed until 1972, presented his draft reform of the common agricultural policy, the Mansholt Plan.
It is my view that the European institutions have not paid sufficient tribute to this great figure in European politics. I still read this classic work today and I still find that it contains many of the answers we need to the problems faced by young farmers, which are accurately described in Mr Parish’s report. We have created a major common policy based on support payments per hectare, per animal or even according to production achieved; we have limited production rights and established quotas; we have imposed complex mechanisms for standardising production and we have created intricate systems intervening in international markets. The results have been varied, with some positive aspects but with many other negative aspects. Amongst the latter, I would highlight the effect this policy has had in creating major problems for young people wishing to establish themselves in farming. The bold study drawn up on this issue by Parliament confirms that land is still the major investment for European farmers. The study also shows difficulty of access to land to be the main problem facing young farmers. According to this study, for each percentage point increase in subsidies for wheat crops, the price of land goes up by 0.4%. This effect is significantly magnified by quota systems and by production-limiting schemes.
We cannot, therefore, contemplate the need to protect and support the modernisation and reinvigoration of agriculture unless we consider changes that could be made to the current CAP. The alternative to this model of agricultural policy will necessarily require a policy focused on farmers and their incomes and not on the produce, the land or the livestock by means of which the income is obtained. It will require an agricultural policy that is defined in regional rather than sectoral terms and will require priority for the environment, rural development, vocational training and early retirement.
To conclude, I should like to suggest to Mr Parish and to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that this report should not be seen as a finishing line but rather as a point of departure for a thorough study into overhauling agriculture and reforming the common agricultural policy with the specific participation of young farmers’ associations. Revisiting the Mansholt Plan would be a good place to start."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples