Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040210.3.2-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, nature conservation, farms as family businesses, employment, safe food – these are all objectives to which we are trying to aspire with European agricultural policy. In his report, Mr Garot was right to point out that, in the final analysis, all these fine words are not worth the paper they are written on if we do not guarantee a reasonable income for the farmer. It is not easy to interpret the statistical income data. Mr Garot concludes that over the past few years, agricultural incomes in the Union have risen by 7%. I have checked with the researchers who supplied these figures whether this is correct. They state that these figures do not take into consideration production levies, interest payable, rent and labour costs. If one looks at the actual difference in the farmer's wallet, then between 1995 and 2001, agricultural incomes in the EU did not rise, but fell, by 6%.
This resolution argues in favour of maintaining price and market policy and associated production control, with good reason. In this respect, extending supply does not, by definition, benefit agricultural incomes. If the milk quota is extended, the milk price continues to drop and the incomes of dairy farmers are put under pressure unnecessarily.
The WTO Summit in Cancun has failed. With it, a far-reaching liberalisation of trade in agricultural products has been put on hold for the time being. Agriculture is not like a bicycle shop where demand from the market can simply be accommodated. Protection remains necessary. In this respect, developing countries are better served by preferential market access to the EU than unbridled free trade. It is unfortunate that a Socialist, of all people, who, by nature, believes in a society that can be moulded to one's will, should accept the liberalisation of agriculture as a natural phenomenon. The rapporteur fears that agricultural support from the EU is losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the WTO. I do not share this fear, because as in football, it is not only about technique, but also about strategy. Otherwise, the French would never be able to take a game off the Dutch team!
I regret that in this resolution, Mr Garot is already working towards another reform: the reform of decoupled support to a form of rural policy. However much I applaud rural policy, it cannot replace European agricultural policy. Mr Garot is wrong to seize upon European agriculture's multifunctionality as an excuse for a new form of structural policy, one that has to pump money into an area on the basis of acreage instead of production value.
If we want to sustain the family business and reject untrammelled economies of scale, our policy has to be in keeping with this. This entails the capping of high company allowances and a systematic protection of small- and medium-size businesses. This, at least, is something that will be of some use to the European farmer."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples