Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.8.3-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy is worrying in a number of respects in terms of the preservation and future development of European farming. We are concerned, in particular, at the proposal to make heavy cuts in direct payments, in that decoupling direct payments from production will not guarantee farmers protection from price fluctuations and will not boost their competitiveness on the international market. Not to mention the fact that the Commission is proposing to turn intervention systems into mere safety nets, without providing for sufficiently comprehensive external protection. Quite apart from the fact that this is extremely dangerous, it means that the stability of a multifunctional European model of agriculture cannot be guaranteed. Moreover, the compulsory modulation of direct payments, as proposed by the Commission, could, in the attempt to release funds for rural development, cause further damage to the COMs in the most vulnerable and weakest sectors.
We certainly support multifunctional agriculture and the development of the second pillar of the CAP, but we believe that this goal can be achieved more gradually. Given that compulsory modulation cannot be the only means of funding of rural development in the long term, it will be necessary to release resources from other budget headings, but we feel that this must not be to the detriment of the COMs.
If enlargement and the new economic situation make cuts necessary, these cuts must not be to the detriment of the very sectors and small farmers at risk, who are already in great difficulties now, for otherwise, paradoxically, we may well find our countryside full of people fleeing the towns, certainly not young farmers. This is not the kind of rural development we want.
We consider excessive the Commission’s proposal to cut payments to producers in many sectors – particularly the rice, nuts and durum wheat sectors – and animal husbandry. We are therefore opposed to the Commission proposal overall and we can only welcome the decision taken by the Heads of State and Government at the Brussels Summit of 24 and 25 October last to leave the Berlin Summit agreement and the budget headings unchanged until 2006.
We welcome the fact that the summit conclusions have temporarily reassured the producers and the markets of the Member States, making the possibility of a complete review and therefore distortion of the fundamental principles of the CAP less likely. We also welcome the schedule decided upon by the summit to be followed until 2013, although it is quite clear that CAP-related budget and resource management decisions will be taken by the 25 countries together after 2006, that is with the participation of the new Member States. In this respect, we hope for a positive outcome to a necessary consultation process, and we hope equally that the new Member States will exercise the same pragmatism as that displayed by the Heads of State and Government at Brussels and accept the recent proposal of the European Council.
More specifically, however, as regards the text of the resolution to be put to the vote tomorrow, I must stress that, although it does moderate or enhance some of the Commission’s proposals in a number of respects, there are certain elements that we cannot endorse, particularly since it supports the principle of introducing a new model of support based on a system in which income support is decoupled from production, it is in favour of phasing-out direct payments, it supports the principle of compulsory modulation and since entire sectors – such as the rice, nuts, milk and animal husbandry sectors – are disregarded. These are the main reasons for our opposition to the text."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples