Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-218"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.6.2-218"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank you all for your contributions, which, even though in parts very critical, were constructive and always relevant. I would also like to assure all of those who have pointed out the importance of giving the European Parliament the power of codecision in the field of agricultural policy, that you have the full support of the Commission and also my full personal support in this matter.
Last of all, the question on Mediterranean products: I would like to say to you quite clearly that next week, when it is time to decide in Council, we will be pressing for the Agriculture Council, jointly with the Commission, to make a declaration guaranteeing that Mediterranean products are assessed on an equal footing and in the same way if new steps are taken.
Anyone who is involved in European politics knows that compromises are necessary in the interest of a common cause and in the interest of reaching a joint decision. Compromises must, however, be judged by criteria, and these criteria are the substance of reform, which must be preserved. The Commission cannot depart from this principle and does not want to do so.
On many topics however, there has for some time been discussion on the adaptation of Commission proposals. These include, for example, the concentration of the cross-compliance requirements on the most important provisions with the aim of improving administrative manageability, a moderate increase in the portion of cross-compliance moneys remaining in the Member States, a longer preparation time for the installation of the management advisory system with initial voluntary participation which shall only later be made obligatory, greater flexibility for the Member States with regard to the payment of advances relating to direct payments, flexible treatment of cases of hardship and problems in calculating and allocating the uniform management premium as well as the option for the Member States to exclude certain types of fruit from the areas subject to premiums, the retention of the rotating set-aside land with the possibility of secondary growth of commodities in these areas, delaying the decoupling of milk premiums in the interest of simplifying administration or a more flexible cofinancing rate for agricultural environmental measures and an occasional increase in the promotion sums in areas with specific environmental restrictions. There are however other topics where even greater efforts are required in the discussion to enable us to achieve solutions. The Presidency will certainly undertake these efforts jointly with the Commission, especially next week in Council.
These topics include, amongst others, the various aspects of the decoupling of direct payments. Here as well there is definitely scope but again, it is important to achieve the basic objectives of decoupling. These are the simplification of our promotion policy, the avoidance of absurd production incentives, the strengthening of a market-oriented entrepreneurial trade and finally, the avoidance of trade distortions. In particular, we should not forget that decoupling means that of the promotion granted, twice as much money will remain in the farmers’ pockets as under the old system. This has been demonstrated again recently by the OECD.
The important topics still requiring an open discussion include the treatment of the outermost marginal areas or overseas areas. Here as well, it is crucial to protect the basic principles. This of course includes the need to take into consideration both the special features of these areas and the objectives of the POSEI Regulations. I would also like to mention the wish voiced in many quarters for an even more targeted strengthening of the two columns of common agricultural policy. You will not be surprised that I am open to ideas here as regards strengthening these two pillars even more than was envisaged.
Once again let us briefly return to the question of decoupling because very many here have mentioned partial decoupling: I think there are problems with the idea of introducing decoupling gradually over a long period or only decoupling a certain percentage of each individual support measure. These mixtures of a partial decoupling mean in the end that the disadvantages of the existing system are linked to withholding the advantages of the new system. We should therefore be very careful here. The particular disadvantages of the existing system are the farmers’ lack of freedom to make decisions about their farms. Other disadvantages are that the farmers have to pay out more for increased and more complex bureaucracy and in particular, they are denied entrepreneurial freedom.
A final word on the question of intervention prices, in regard to which some of you have been very critical, asking why we actually want or need a measure to guarantee market balance for the coming years, 10 years in total. The main reason is that if we compare the market forecasts that we used as a basis for the Agenda 2000 with the market forecasts that the same institutes, for example, Fabri, are now publishing, these institutes have had to drastically lower their very positive expectations of that time. For example, a reduction of 14% for wheat, 10% for barley, 16% for maize, 37% for butter and more than 30% for skimmed milk powder.
How can we then come up with a 5% drop in the intervention price? Only because we were considerably more cautious then when these forecasts were suggested to us and we can therefore now take a more moderate approach. Not taking steps however, would again result in a market imbalance and that means none other than downward pressure on price."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples