Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.2.4-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Seldom have I seen a greater degree of unanimity on the need for reform of the sheep and goat sector. The rapporteur, the Commission, Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and farming organisations are all at one on the need for reform. It is now down to this Parliament and the Council to give meaningful effect to this consensus.
There is, however, one important bridge to be crossed if this desired objective is to be achieved. Unless we succeed in reaching a fair consensus on the level of financial support for sheep farming, this attempt at reform will fail and the decline of sheep production will lead to a significant imbalance in the European meat sector, thereby putting greater pressure on the beef sector as farmers switch from one enterprise to another. So, it makes good economic sense to get the balance right now. There will not be another bite at this cherry.
We talk a lot about the sustainability of European agriculture. To me it means maintaining a reasonable balance between all sectors, including the profitability of each. I do not have to remind the House of the relevance of sheep farming in areas not suited to other agricultural enterprises and the importance, from a rural development perspective, of sustaining farm families in those areas.
I do, however, wish to acknowledge the positive aspects of the Commission proposals, including the findings of the Evaluation Committee report, the simplification of procedures and the introduction of a single premium. Here, however, I differ with the Commission on its method of calculation, based on averaging. This does not fairly reflect the difficulties experienced by the sector over a longer period. During the debate, I tabled a number of amendments. My proposal for a flat rate premium of EUR 32 was not supported; it was based on a fair and thorough evaluation by agricultural economists of the level of support necessary to restore equity to the sector. On behalf of my Group, I then supported proposals for EUR 30 – a figure which I believe is the very minimum necessary to close the gap and help restore profitability to the sector. I ask the House not to deviate from this figure, which can be accommodated within the existing guidelines, and also to support amendments on compensation for extensification, the rural world premium and funding for market developments.
Like all Members of this House, I am conscious of the budgetary implications of reform. I caution against reform of sheepmeat at the expense of other sectors, particularly beef. Those who take pleasure in pointing out that agriculture takes up almost 50% of the budget should keep in mind that this general support is as much a subsidy to consumers as it is support for the farming community – the people who are expected to guarantee food supply and quality and at the same time maintain the rural environment.
Those who believe that agriculture is oversubsidised should take note of the continuing decline in the number of farm families and ask themselves why this is happening. We should note, in my view, with alarm the reluctance of young people to take up farming and ponder the consequences for food security and employment in the agricultural food sector. In evaluating the relevance of agriculture to the European and world economy, you cannot apply the same economic criteria as we apply to other sectors."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples