Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.7.3-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the existence and the development of an agricultural industry are key issues for the countries of the South. They often have great potential in this area. Ambitious agricultural reforms are or ought to be dedicated to this. The main issue, however, concerns these countries’ self-sufficiency in food. This is why, from the outset, I wish to support my group’s call for the right to food sovereignty, in other words, people’s right to define their own policy, to be recognised in a specific United Nations convention.
Developing countries are often restricted to exporting a few unprocessed products. All the evidence suggests, however, that specialising in exports of raw materials is relatively unprofitable and weakens economies by making them subject to the whims of world markets. Furthermore, the destruction of traditional food-producing farming caused by single-crop farming for export does not benefit anyone apart from huge multinationals.
Over and above this, as the report quite rightly states, unbridled global free trade has devastating effects on the agriculture of the South. The opening up of agricultural markets forces farmers to produce at prices set by the international market. These are so low that they allow neither the farmers of the North nor those of the South to produce in a way that respects the environment and at the same time to earn enough money to support their families.
Given these circumstances, as one NGO working in Burkina Faso has expressed it, how can we persuade people that international trade is the key to development in the countries of the South? The countries of the North have always protected their agriculture. Why should a system that has worked well and which is still working well for the North no longer be good for the South? Should the opening up of the markets, therefore, benefit the peasant farmers or the multinationals that are buying up the banana plantations of Cameroon or Côte-d'Ivoire, for example?
Enabling developing countries to safeguard their basic right to food security and to the survival of their farming methods therefore requires clear principles to be brought to international negotiations, starting with the recognition, by the WTO, of the need for preferential and differentiated treatment for developing countries, which must be interpreted with this aim in mind.
As far as we are concerned, the European Union cannot continue, on the one hand, to call for the development of the countries of the South and, on the other, to uphold an agricultural policy which ruins much of their efforts in this sector. There is now, therefore, an undeniable need to speed up the elimination of export subsidies granted by the Union, and we must also condemn the major increase in subsidies for agriculture determined by the US agricultural guidance law, with subsidies of around USD 180 billion over ten years.
Next, the EU ought to play a much more active role in ensuring that fair prices are set on the world market and thereby prevent the deterioration of trade terms. The burden of debt also contributes to an increase in export crops in order to obtain the currency needed to pay back this debt. Its cancellation, therefore, remains more topical than ever.
Lastly, and on this note I shall conclude, with regard to aid, investment must be made as a matter of urgency in human resources and infrastructures, especially in transport. It is also crucial to preserve water and biodiversity as public commodities."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples