Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.8.3-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, despite the scope of the decisions adopted at the Brussels Council, I shall restrict myself to making a few comments on the Communication on the mid-term review of the CAP presented by the Commission. This is the matter addressed in Parliament’s resolution.
In our opinion, the decoupling of financial support would effectively end up taking the form of aid, with the consequent loss of legitimacy in the medium term. This would run counter to the aims of cohesion, because it would limit the receipt of aid to the historical base – I am referring to the Commission’s proposal as it stands - it would promote inactivity in areas that already have problems caused by nature and would concentrate aid in areas which have more intensive farming. It would also create problems of depopulation and of reduction in economic activity.
It would be hard to compensate for these processes by means of a few instruments for rural development with the very limited financial resources they currently have. The poorly named ‘modulation’ is designed more to save money than to ensure a distribution of aid that is fairer and which has greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
The ceiling of EUR 300 000 would affect only 1 900 of the four and a half million farms; according to our calculations, however, the annual 3% reduction would affect an entire range of farms, from the very small to the largest. The result will be that 15% of savings would be made on farms receiving between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 per year. The proposal adopts, therefore, quite an antisocial approach.
The sole purpose of the sectoral reforms is to save money. Only partial compensation is being proposed for the reduction in farmers’ incomes as a result of the fall in market prices, of the further liberalisation of trade and of increased competition as a result of the US Farm Bill.
Yesterday, Commissioner, I read something that did make me happy; it seems that, following the Brussels Council, the Commission is exploring new forms of modulation. At least this is how I understood it and this could be something positive. It would be ideal if the review went beyond being a disguised step backwards and instead achieved a genuine modulation that is more redistributive, in accordance with a range of criteria, most crucially that of employment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples