Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-302"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.13.3-302"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, compared with a draft Regulation which is extremely minimalist, the virtue of the report by Mrs Auroi is that it opens up the way to start, albeit very modestly, to reduce our enormous deficit in protein and oleaginous plants.
Whilst the majority of agricultural holdings are mixed, the Commission proposes to limit the possibility to grow fodder crops on their set-aside land, in other words, on less than 10% of the surface area designated for cereals, protein and oleaginous crops, to holdings which are 100% organic, which accounts for barely 2% of the cultivated area in the European Union.
Mrs Auroi is proposing extending this possibility to conventional farm holdings, especially to livestock farms, and she is right. But even if it is revised in this way, the proposal is clearly not in line with the extent of the problem we have to solve. Our deficit in protein and oleaginous crops, which was made considerably worse by the Blair House constraints, exceeded 35 million tonnes before the ban on animal meal for monogastric animals even came into force. At least 300 000 tons of additional imports a month must be added to that.
So only an ambitious ‘protein’ plan will redress the balance and satisfy consumers’ demands for traceability. In this regard, I am appalled at the Commission’s spirit of renunciation, which it demonstrated in its communication of 16 March, in which short-term free trade took the place of policy. I will come back to this in tomorrow’s debate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples