Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.9.3-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, when Agenda 2000 was signed in 1999 in Berlin we all breathed a sigh of relief as it began a period of budgetary calm in which multifunctionality had laid strong foundations guaranteeing the survival of a sustainable rural environment, in which quality, safety and respect for the environment had found their place. The interim review is, therefore, key.
The common agricultural policy is currently undergoing a major change, due to the challenges that the European Union has to face, particularly with enlargement to the East and the negotiations with the World Trade Organisation.
The European Union is preparing to undertake a review of the CAP in 2003, which could be the prelude to a more in-depth reform planned for 2006. One of the key elements in this debate is the modulation of aid from the market policy in order to transfer funds to the second pillar, to rural development, where we have been left short; in this way we will achieve a policy that many think will be more consistent with the agreements obtained at the WTO, as well as easing the path to accession.
What appears to be a laudable aim, however, could also be a double-edged sword. We all want farmers to contribute to the sustainable maintenance of rural areas, but those areas cannot live without farmers, and what is more, if we try to achieve the final objective at any cost, we run the risk of using the wrong methods, because although we all want greater rural development, this cannot take place if it endangers the profitability of farming. Any change made by the European Union to direct income aid must be done without damaging the income of farmers.
Therefore, if we accept the modulation of CAP aid, that modulation must take place according to parameters that do not put paid to the competitiveness of farms and that take into account the economic inequalities of the European Union. We must therefore be extremely careful when passing on this message to society. That careful attitude is, I think, what inspired the European Commission to decide to postpone the presentation of its proposal to revise the CAP for 2003 to 10 July, once the United States has passed its new farming law. This new law represents a u-turn in United States policy by reintroducing a clear support for prices, which could place Community producers at a clear disadvantage.
The European Union cannot give in to the whims of any country when the future of its farmers is a stake. I would like the European Commission to present its proposals to the European Parliament and very carefully weigh up the impact that the Farm Bill is going to have. We should demand a report from the Community executive on that impact in order to be clear about this. If we have to opt for modulation, it should be approached with care, taking a careful line that will not lead us to a point of no return for our farmers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples