Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.6.2-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, the reports by Mr Bautista Ojeda, Mr Cunha, Mrs Jeggle, Mr Olsson, Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, and Mr Souchet, as well as the proposals by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are, in my view, truly impressive evidence of the commitment with which Parliament intends to tackle the pressing challenges facing European agriculture and the future of the common agricultural policy. For that, I wish to extend to you all my warmest thanks.
We should not forget that the great debate on the future of structural policy still lies before us. When the Commission presents the third cohesion report at the end of this year, it will also be putting forward proposals for the new, post-2006 structural policy.
This brings me to the reports on the market regulations, and I would like to start with the Souchet report on cereals and starch.
We have learned from the experience of recent years that, in Agenda 2000, we took too little account of market development. Our analysis of long-term prospects gives very clear indications that, without further changes to market support, the EU’s cereals producers will be unable to find adequate markets for their produce. That, at the end of the day, is what counts. This dilemma is made even more acute by changes in the exchange rate of the euro against the dollar.
It is for that reason that we must regrettably cut intervention prices by 5% as scheduled, and stop increasing them on a monthly basis.
As is well known, this still involves a number of specific problems – with rye, for example, intervention stocks of which have increased to 5.3 million tonnes, equivalent to more than the harvest for a normal year. This state of affairs, already unsustainable, may well get even worse after enlargement in 2004. Responsibility for these structural surpluses lies primarily with the intervention mechanism, and so we should do away with the problem for good, rather than – as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is proposing – fixing our sights on a partial solution in the form of the introduction of national indicative maximum quantities. As I see it, there is no alternative to abolishing intervention for rye.
From the point of view of economic principle, the retention of production refunds in the starch sector is no longer necessary, as market prices will correspond to those on the global market. Any minimum price for starch potatoes are made questionable by measures in the cereals sector, with which it competes. Moreover, the retention of a 50% coupled premium will provide sufficient economic incentive to grow starch potatoes.
Turning to dried fodder, I would like, in order that the Commission’s position be better understood, to remind you of the trenchant criticism levelled at these rules by independent studies and the Court of Auditors’ report, on the grounds of adverse effects on the environment. There is no doubt that the amendments aimed at using aid rules to promote technical progress, in order, in particular, to minimise energy consumption, are of interest, but I ask myself whether it really does make sense to do something of this sort within the framework of market support measures. Would the rural development programmes not be a better framework for such a scheme?
In view of the social, economic and environmental significance of the rice sector, I have no wish to question the need for a market regulation on rice, but there is no getting away from the need for radical reform, without which, we would end up with enormous intervention stocks, which – quite apart from the resultant cost to the Community budget – we would be unable to sell. I am glad that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development shares this view in principle and supports the essence of the Commission’s proposals for dealing with this. A number of your amendments, such as the increase of import volumes and the obligatory price refund, have my complete support. As for your other proposals, I support their general tendency, but not the form of words you have chosen. I am convinced, though, that the guidance you have given me will help with the final negotiations in the Council.
As regards import rules, any change to the bound customs duties on rice would have to be negotiated under Article 28 of GATT. For that to happen, the Council would, ultimately, have to give the Commission a mandate to conduct negotiations on the subject. In addition, as I understand it, import duties for rough rice should be checked separately. If, however, a permanent intervention mechanism for rice were to be retained – albeit only at the level of EUR 150 per tonne – that would prove very expensive. I do, though, have an open mind as regards testing a standard mechanism at a price level that is compatible with the conditions expected on the markets and that prevents a renewed increase in stocks.
This brings me to the last two reports – Mrs Jeggle’s – on market regulation. I note that the members of the Committee recommend the extension of the rules on milk quotas until 2015, whilst taking a critical view of the bringing forward of price cuts under Agenda 2000 from 2005 to 2004, as well as of other cuts in intervention prices and the limit on the intervention volume for butter. I am convinced, however, that these steps are needed in order to make the EU’s milk sector more competitive. Being the world’s largest exporter of dairy products, we also have to allow developments on global markets, and discussions in the WTO, to influence our decisions.
I do think that there is a large degree of unanimity among Parliament, the Commission and the Member States when it comes to analysing the problem and defining our general objectives. There is no doubt that this consensus is founded on the common denominator of the model of multifunctional and sustainable agriculture, the maintenance of which is of prime concern to all of us. This model is our programme. If the common agricultural policy is to claim to be sustainable, it must be consistently guided by economic, social and environmental objectives.
It is evident that the 1% increase in the milk quota in both 2007 and 2008 is another sensitive issue. Independent studies have shown that increased consumption means that the markets are able to cope with these additional quantities. I am therefore convinced that this proposal makes sense. If, however, you want first to wait for the changes to happen, the Commission will not stand in the way of a discussion on the subject.
I am sceptical, though, about the proposals for granting higher support payments, increasing them in disadvantaged areas, differentiating on the basis of quality standards or fixing prices in line with the costs of labour and production. I do, however, have an open mind when it comes to the amendments on the position of those who market their goods directly and the consideration of the question of to what extent the Member States might add part of the transferred quotas to their national reserves.
I share the general view of the Committee’s members that the milk sector must remain profitable and that producers’ incomes must be safeguarded. I can also assure you that I will give careful consideration to all the proposals you have made.
Finally, let me turn to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos’ own-initiative report on multifunctional agriculture and reform of the CAP. You have said, Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, that you cannot bring yourself to oppose the objectives of reform, and that is quite something. We all want to build up the rural environment, especially in disadvantaged areas, and this is what the budget funds allocated, the use of sustainability as a guiding principle, and the payment of farmers for the performance of social services, are all about. It goes without saying that we have to apply funds in the most effective way, in the way most suited to the end in mind, but we also have to account to the taxpayer for this. Our concept of rural development and the use of modulation to strengthen it are tangible steps towards the achievement of the objectives you have set out. This is a more than adequate reward for agriculture’s multifunctional nature. What you are demanding is a massive redistribution of aid funds, and I cannot agree to it. I am not convinced that the system would thereby, and automatically, be made more just, but I do understand that we, as a matter of necessity, have to give special consideration to cohesion; that is why we have included an element of cohesion in the choice of the allocation key of the additional rural development resources that will be available in future, and that must be retained.
All in all, I would like to thank you most warmly for all that you have done, and will add that I look forward with eager anticipation to the forthcoming contributions. I will be happy to reply to your questions at the end of the debate.
If we measure these objectives against the reality, the extent of what still remains to be done becomes apparent. The social function of agriculture, the general economic framework, the stability of international trade relations, the maintenance of the environment, the preservation of cultural landscapes and, above all, the production of high-quality, safe food – all these things, taken together, are the challenges that we must overcome in the interests of farmers and in the interests of all Europe’s other citizens.
It is these factors that underlie the Commission’s proposals for reform, which are being debated here today. We want to adapt market management mechanisms to future conditions of supply and demand, in order to avert crises before they develop. We want to make direct payments that are compatible with the market and with our international trading obligations. We have to offer farmers the legitimate expectation of adequate payments and determine the amounts paid in individual cases by reference to historic levels of support. The expectations of present-day society cannot be ignored; we have to tie the direct payments to criteria measuring the protection of the environment and of animals, the safety of food and safety at work. We want to facilitate uniformly productive farming and see cultural landscapes preserved by means of agricultural activity rather than through any other kind. To the instruments of rural development policy, we want to add elements guaranteeing quality and protecting animals. We are obliged to introduce degression in order to secure finance for new reforms, and modulation can help to develop rural development policy. Last but not least, we do not want our reforms to lose sight of the need for cohesion.
In listing these elements, I am treading upon the ground that is, to a substantial extent, common to all of us. I do not want to deny, though, that there are differences – some of them major ones – as regards the assessment of the situation and the choice of the appropriate instruments. I am of course aware that we still have some way to go before we reach agreement. As the President of the Agriculture Council said, however, this is for us the way forward, both in Parliament and in the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
Looking at the specific elements in the Cunha report, I have to acknowledge that it contains much food for thought, and I also thank Mr Cunha for his clear affirmation of the need for reform. I, too, am sympathetic to preferential treatment for disadvantaged areas, but I wish neither to repudiate nor to endorse the idea that applying different modulation rates is the most appropriate means of doing so.
There are also reasonable arguments to be adduced in favour of not granting farm income payments for certain vulnerable production sectors such as the keeping of suckler cows, sheep or goats, not least the maintenance of agricultural production in problem areas.
We do, though, have to consider the drawbacks of such a course of action, which includes such things as the market-distorting effect of coupled aid, or the constraints that prevent farmers from doing the most economically sensible thing for their businesses. There is sound reasoning, too, behind the idea of excluding fruit and vegetables from the land eligible for support, yet we also have to ensure that we do not, overall, go so far as to risk losing the advantages of decoupled aid.
In the Olsson report and the Committee on Agriculture’s amendments to it, I admire Members’ ambitious visions of the further development of rural areas. I agree entirely with Mr Olsson that we should all make the effort to avoid the proposals being watered down. This makes me sceptical about the large number of proposed amendments, and also about their scope. In my view, programme packages put together on the basis of Regulation 1257 should not be wholly dismantled halfway through the programming period. I might add that the existing Budget framework does not permit fundamental changes to the amounts and rates of aid. Ultimately, the Commission also has to take care that the whole package should retain its coherence. The same can be said of the rules for state aid and the regulations of the Structural Funds."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples