Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020902.8.1-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Stevenson, and also the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their constructive attitude to this communication. At the outset, we would do well to recall the context in which the present discussions about protein crops arose. Since the Council Decision of 4 December 2000, the use of processed animal protein has been banned in feed for all animals. Because the use of animal meal for ruminants had already been forbidden for a number of years, the ban mainly concerned the pig and poultry sectors. Shortly afterwards, the European Council in Nice took note of the Commission's intention to analyse the supply of and demand for oilseed and protein-bearing crops in strict compliance with the financial perspective.
This analysis resulted in the Commission papers presented in March 2001. Let me summarise the conclusions which we drew from our analysis of the situation and of possible policy options. Firstly, the ban on meat and bonemeal for non-ruminants would create a deficit of 1.5 million tonnes of soyameal equivalent. Secondly, increased aid for EU domestic production would produce disappointing results: little extra output at a high cost. Furthermore, our degree of self-sufficiency would scarcely change. Thirdly, increased aid for oilseeds would bring us back into the Blair House Agreement's restrictions on areas cultivated with crop-specific aids.
Since the presentation of our report, we have continued our reflections not only on plant proteins but indeed across the board. This culminated in the mid-term review of the EU's common agricultural policy presented by the Commission on 10 July 2002. The Commission is of the opinion that public expenditure in the farm sector must be better justified. Besides supporting farming incomes, it must yield more in return in terms of food quality, conservation of the environment and animal welfare, the countryside and the farming landscape, and enhancing social balance and equity. For EU consumers and taxpayers, the review should ensure better value for money. We will be discussing these proposals in the autumn.
Turning specifically to protein crop production, let me remind you that we propose introducing a separate supplementary aid of EUR 55.57 per hectare. We also envisage integrating the aid schemes for grain legumes and dried fodder into the list of decoupled aids. The current provisions on non-food crops will be replaced by non-specific aid for energy crops. The mid-term review of the CAP gives us a chance in the context of the new round of WTO negotiations to oblige our trading partners to accept our demands on, for example, the recognition of registered designations of origin, animal welfare, food safety and the precautionary principle.
Our new system of income support dependent on production output will avoid distorting trade and should not have a negative impact on the developing countries. Unlike the situation during the Uruguay Round, the European Union will be in a position to take an active part in negotiating the agriculture chapter of the WTO Doha Round, fortified by a strong negotiating stance and a level of credibility which the United States has lost with its recent farm bill.
Finally, let me say something on the feed ban relating to fishmeal. The extended feed ban prohibits the use of fishmeal intended for ruminants, not because of a potential TSE risk of fishmeal itself, but for control reasons, as we have discussed here on a number of occasions. In particular it may be difficult to exclude the presence of land animal proteins in fishmeal or feed containing fishmeal. The reallowance of fishmeal in ruminant feed therefore mainly depends on the availability of methods of differentiate between fishmeal and prohibited animal proteins. Several researchers are working on this at the moment and I believe there is an opportunity to revisit this particular issue under the comitology procedure that is set out in the animal by-products regulation for which I have responsibility."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples