Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.6.2-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when the Greek Government took over the Council Presidency on 1 January 2003, the reform of the common agricultural policy was one of its focal points. Thus, negotiations to close this dossier were one of the main objectives of the Greek Presidency, in cooperation of course with the European Commission and the European Parliament.
Other issues on which the views of the Member States diverge are the need to safeguard small and medium-sized producers, the application of principles of social justice and the wish for more straightforward administration on farm holdings. We must not forget that the arrangements also aim to save resources, which will be used to fund future reforms of the common organisation of the markets. In other words, because agricultural resources are specific, any increase in the franchise or any other similar arrangement must not jeopardise either the funding of future reforms in dairy products, sugar or Mediterranean products or the financial ceiling.
The third issue is cross-compliance. Almost all the Member States take a positive position on this measure in principle. The problem lies in the fact that this endeavour is considered to involve an excessive administrative and financial cost, which is disproportionately high in relation to the objective pursued. Consequently, our efforts must tend towards finding ways which will allow demands to be restricted to the absolutely necessary, and making provision for greater flexibility in the Member States, with the possible gradual application of the proposed system.
Ladies and gentlemen, various measures have been proposed within the framework of the Community policy on rural development, in the aim of responding better to the concerns of society as regards environmental protection, compliance with Community standards in the agricultural sector, improving the conditions in which animals are kept and higher food specification standards. These ideas on the part of the Commission have attracted a great deal of support.
It became clear during the various stages of discussion of the new measures that the reform of the common agricultural policy must be the starting point for simplifying the Community farming development policy. At sectoral level, the European Commission's proposals need improving so that the Council can adopt them within the framework of an overall package. Finally, the reform of the common agricultural policy must include specific measures for young farmers, who represent the future of European farming, and specific arrangements for disadvantaged, isolated and problem areas of the European Union currently threatened with abandonment.
I should like now to refer to the financial aspects of the proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy. Discussions in the Council have focused on the anticipated financial impact of the proposed market measures and the financial aspects of the main elements of the reform proposals from linked payments, gradual reduction and modulation. The Commission's expenditure forecasts show that the modulation and gradual reduction measures are required in order to safeguard compliance with the financial ceilings set by the summit in Brussels in October 2002. As the presidency, we shall endeavour to ensure that the solutions adopted are within the framework of the financial frameworks decided for the European Union budget.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, our Council has accepted that the present economic climate is such that we need to go one step further in adjusting the common agricultural policy. We all need to recognise that the common agricultural policy was never static and that it has always responded to changing circumstances by adjusting existing and creating new means. These decisions have always been founded on the Community method, which means cooperation between the institutions and compromise between the Member States within the framework of the Council.
Today we are at a crucial stage in the overall process. With pragmatism and good will, which have always been demonstrated both by the institutions and the Member States, I am optimistic that we shall be able to reach political agreement over coming weeks. I should like to assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that the Council, like the citizens of Europe, awaits the views of the European Parliament with the keenest interest.
Our Council discussed the Commission's proposals at its meetings in February, March and April on the basis of the Presidency's questionnaires, which focused on reform issues of particular importance. The Presidency drew positive conclusions from this procedure and decided to give impetus to the negotiations by creating a High Level Group. The role of this group was mainly to prepare the crucial summit of Council ministers in June.
The push towards reaching an agreement was reinforced at the Council on 26 and 27 May, when Commissioner Fischler and I met each minister in order to identify basic problems and possible solutions and reach an honest compromise. Both the Commissioner and I found to our satisfaction that we have the support of the majority of ministers for our timetable. This majority is convinced that, provided that we achieve the right mixture in the content of the dossier, we shall be able to take decisions before the end of the Greek Presidency, in other words at the June Council.
I should like to point out to Parliament that the Ministers for Agriculture of the 10 new states participated in the tripartite consultations. The European Parliament is a particularly important factor in the procedure to formulate the future common agricultural policy. Your resolution in November 2002 on the Commission communication gave the Commission important pointers for the orientation of its legislative proposals.
The opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission's legislative proposals for the reform of the CAP is exceptionally important and is awaited by all with keen interest. I should like at this point to thank all the rapporteurs, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and, of course, all the members of the Committee on Agriculture, who managed in such a short space of time to complete their efforts and vote on the truly interesting reports on the Commission's package of proposals.
This consistency on the part of the European Parliament, and especially the Agriculture Committee, will allow the House to give its opinion on the European Commission's proposals in good time, thereby enabling our Council to pursue an honest and sincere compromise. This compromise will not ignore the European agricultural model based on family holdings or the multifunctionality of agriculture or, of course, the needs of less favoured areas, as confirmed by the European Council in Brussels in October 2002.
Allow me now to refer to the most important issues in our overall endeavour. The first is decoupling. This is without doubt the core of reform. This is what is causing the greatest difficulty in finding a commonly accepted solution. The approaches to this vary between the Member States, with the consequence that, so far, material reservations have been expressed on a series of individual elements.
One initial issue is the entry into force of the system. The view expressed by certain members of our Council with so-called partial decoupling is also particularly important. Although this sort of approach could, in principle, constitute one element of a compromise, we must bear in mind that various interpretations of differing content are given to the term partial decoupling. There are also Member States who have expressed themselves in favour of the derogation from decoupling for certain products while, on the other hand, other Member States have come out in favour of the integration of more products, in order to avoid competitive phenomena between the productive sectors. The opinion of the European Parliament on this crucial issue will, I hope, help us find a satisfactory solution.
Second issue: modulation. Most Member States have expressed reservations as to the franchise level of EUR 5 000 for the derogation from the obligation to gradually reduce support, whereas others wish for an intermediate scale to be provided for, which will allow for the more progressive application of gradual reductions on the larger and more competitive holdings."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples