Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.8.3-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad to have the opportunity today to present to you my assessment of the decisions on agricultural policy taken at the Brussels Summit. As long ago as July, the Commission, by opening the mid-term review, prompted a wide-ranging debate on the future of the agricultural policy. Now, in addition, the European Council has answered a number of budget questions relating to the common agricultural policy. The summit decisions are, in the first place, significant in that the way ahead is opened up for the Member States to conclude the enlargement negotiations, and in that the fifteen Heads of State and Government have accepted the Commission proposal for the phasing-in of direct payments in the agricultural sector for the new Member States.
We acknowledge, secondly, that greater quality, certifications, audits and so on will entail additional costs for our farmers, particularly the smaller ones. These considerations make our proposals for decoupling and strengthening the second pillar crucially important in terms of the maintenance of the European agricultural model. I am also very receptive to Parliament's proposals for giving women a greater role in agriculture. I see clearly defined conditions for farm management, in the form of cross-compliance, as an essential factor in getting the common agricultural policy back in line with what the public wants, and I also absolutely share Parliament's desire to provide for straightforward and efficient procedures for these audits.
Simplification in general will remain a key objective, but quality must be capable of being demonstrated and attested if it is to remain credible. As I said earlier, I expect Parliament to be emphatic in specifying how it wants the second pillar to be equipped. Conversely, I support Parliament's concern that it should be accorded rights of codecision in agricultural policy as well, which would significantly enhance the common agricultural policy's standing in the public eye.
We must now seize the opportunity to build up a sustainable agricultural policy, to bring it into line with society's expectations, and to give farmers a long-term political perspective. I am counting on your support in this!
If the candidate countries demonstrate the same realism, then it should be possible to conclude the enlargement negotiations at the Copenhagen Summit, but the Brussels decisions will also have substantial effects on the agricultural policy of the future. The primary consideration here of course is that we should have, for the period from 2007 to 2013, a Budget framework predetermined by the EU Fifteen for the costs of market regulation and the direct payments. This framework consists of the EU Fifteen's planned expenditure for 2006 on the one hand, and the ten new members' financial proposals for 2006 in nominal values on the other. These will be increased only by 1% each year. Initially, this will mean that, in 2007 and 2008, two thirds of the implementation of the Agenda 2000 reforms in the milk sector will have to be funded below the new upper limit, as must 70% of the phasing-in of the direct payments and all the reforms that the Council has already heralded, by which I mean such things as sugar or olive oil, tobacco, wine or cotton.
This, then, at last means that the old agricultural guideline – which had already ceased to have any effect – is no longer in existence. What now matters is that this new financial framework should serve as a basis for giving the common agricultural policy for the next ten years a clear perspective for planning and development. What does that mean for the mid-term review in the first instance? The Presidency's Final Conclusions establish that the Brussels decisions should no more prejudice the mid-term review decided on at Berlin than the international commitments we made at Doha and elsewhere, any more than any other future decisions on the common agricultural policy.
These committed us to continue to take account of the decisions taken by the Heads of State and Government in Berlin and Gothenburg. It is, in this context, noteworthy that the Brussels Summit set no limit to the funds for rural development. Quite on the contrary, it reminded us of the importance of the less favoured regions and of the multifunctionality of agriculture, in effect, then, of the development of the second pillar, for which Parliament has called on many occasions already.
I am therefore working on the assumption that Parliament will be firm in stating its intentions when setting down the new Financial Perspective for the post-2006 period, on which, in contrast to the common agricultural policy, it has full power of codecision. The fact that the Final Conclusions expressly refer to the European Union's undertakings resulting from the start of the Doha Development Round is taken by some to mean that the proposal to decouple the direct payments is dead and buried.
I warn against adopting any such interpretation, as, if the international negotiations produce any commitment to make blue-box reductions – something that the European Union, like all the WTO members represented at Doha, has declared itself prepared, in principle, to do and to which the Council re-committed itself at the sustainability summit in Johannesburg – then that would mean at least partial abandonment of direct payments, as the option of decoupling would then no longer be available. This issue will be discussed in March at the latest, when arrangements for the agricultural sector are put on the WTO table.
What will be the effects of the mid-term review on the agricultural sector? This question is often asked, and, in its communication entitled ‘
’ (‘Towards sustainable agriculture – a mid-term review of the common agricultural policy’), the Commission has subjected it to an initial qualitative evaluation founded on internal analyses, which concentrate on the ways in which farmers, consumers, taxpayers, the public, the food industry and governmental authorities will benefit, and on the contribution the proposals would make to the enlargement process and to the EU's position on the international stage.
This analysis was also supplemented in the communication on the mid-term review by medium-term prognoses for agricultural markets and reports on the rice, nut and milk sectors, which were published by the Agriculture Directorate-General in June. An internal investigation into EU enlargement's effects on agricultural markets and incomes in the candidate countries was published in March. Work is currently in progress, under the aegis of the Agriculture Directorate-General, on comprehensive analyses of the potential effects of the actual policy proposals, the results of which will be presented at the end of the year along with the draft legislation. In this, we will of course be taking full account of the Brussels decisions.
Let me add something on the subject of Parliament's draft resolution. I share your view that our policy objectives require us to satisfy ourselves that our policy instruments are balanced and uniform. I welcome your offer of cooperation with the aim of guaranteeing that, in an enlarged Europe, the European agricultural model will be not only further developed and enhanced, but also safeguarded. You and I are at one in the belief that matters other than trade have to be better integrated into multilateral agreements, but, as negotiators for the European Union, we can achieve this only if we have enough bargaining counters to negotiate with."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Auf dem Weg zu nachhaltiger Landwirtschaft – Eine Zwischenübersicht über die gemeinsame Agrarpolitik"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples