Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.2.4-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the present organisation is manifestly unsatisfactory to all the parties involved, particularly the sheep and goat farmers, but also to Member States and the Commission. It has allowed the income of sheep farmers to fall behind the general levels of income of other sections of the farming community. This widening gap is a serious matter when considering that large areas of the Community are highly dependent on sheep and goat farming.
There are also proposals which would allow Member States to make additional headage and area payments. These would be based on objective criteria which could cover
environmental considerations, tagging and traceability.
Sheep farming has not made the productivity advances seen in other agricultural sectors. Amendments have been introduced calling for Commission support for increased marketing promotion. Targeting young people to encourage consumption will be important for success.
The committee recognises that this is an interim stage and looks forward to reports from the Commission on environmental impact, traceability and pasturing techniques. It is anticipated that this will lead to wider reforms in the Agenda 2000 mid-term review.
The Agriculture Committee looks to the Commission for a positive response to the amendments it has proposed.
The method of calculation of the premium is complicated and statistically suspect. The figures on which the eventual sheep premium is agreed cannot be justified in a satisfactory manner because it requires detailed information of what is happening in the market and that cannot readily be obtained nor easily substantiated.
Another drawback is that the premium is based on deficiency payments. This is not acceptable to the WTO and is therefore a barrier to negotiations in agricultural issues generally.
For farmers there is uncertainty over a 12-month period as to what annual premium will be paid eventually. Because of this uncertainty the premium does not allow effective management planning.
All these drawbacks were recognised by the Commission and are largely reinforced by a study that was carried out prior to the preparation of the proposals which we are now debating. The Commission proposal, in essence, is simpler, less bureaucratic and will be easier to understand. The fundamental difference is that it is based on a fixed annual payment. This is less objectionable to the WTO and therefore will help with the overall agricultural negotiations in which the Commission is involved.
More importantly, from the farmers' viewpoint, the premium will be known in advance and this will make farm business decisions easier.
My discussions in contact with the sheep and goat farmers of the Community confirm that the proposals are broadly acceptable to them. The information that I have from Member States is that it is broadly acceptable to them as well. There is agreement that it is desirable to agree the revision in time for 1 January 2002 so that the benefit to the farming community can come in as quickly as possible.
The principle of the Commission's proposals is broadly acceptable to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, though there are differences in emphasis. The committee proposes a premium 50% higher than that put forward by the Commission. The lower premium for milking-sheep and goats is rejected and a higher supplement proposed for sheep and goats in less favoured areas.
There are strong pressures within the committee that the market organisation should make greater provision for national differences. A number of proposals have been put forward. They cover such matters as extensification, de-stocking and the buy-out of premium rights."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples