Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-382"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.14.2-382"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are currently engaged in pursuing interim reform of the CAP. I shall not reiterate arguments I adduced in the past. Nonetheless, I would like to take this opportunity to restate my opposition to measures that would have a significant impact on the common agricultural policy.
Decoupling aid will result in reduced production. That much is clear. All economic activity in underprivileged areas or areas with natural disadvantages will suffer too. A two-tier land market will emerge because some of the land will be entitled to aid and the rest will not. This will fuel speculation. It will be even more difficult for young farmers to start out in life. Young farmers will require funds to purchase payment rights in addition to funds to purchase land.
All these developments will come at a critical stage in the hand over of agricultural holdings from one generation to another. The situation of the economy in general is precarious too, and the prospects for jobs bleak. There could be serious implications for the population of the areas in question.
The consequences will be most noticeable for crops in the disadvantaged areas or for crops involving the most variable costs in terms of intensity of labour. This is very much the case for the crops under discussion today. Cotton, tobacco and olive oil are all in this category.
I am aware of the mandate given by the Council of Ministers, although I do not endorse it. I cannot do so because of the drastic consequences it would have for extensive sensitive areas. Essentially, this policy is about using scant economic resources to attain certain objectives. To date, resources were allocated to these crops with clear objectives in mind. The question arises as to what the objectives of this proposal are. The risks involved are abundantly clear, however. Even the Commission itself has recognised them.
This proposal means abandoning a policy that had proved successful. The current COM for olive oil has resulted in substantial improvements in terms of quality and consumer safety. It also stimulated economic activity in depressed areas. Why should it be abandoned?
In the case of other cereal crops, the option of keeping a percentage of aid coupled to production has been retained. The circumstances of these crops are very different from those of olive oil. Surely similar arrangements for olive oil could be considered?
I would also like to mention the stance adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament. The only way of ensuring that what actually reaches the consumer is actually olive oil is to keep part of the aid coupled to production. The fact that all this has coincided with the proposal to stop financing control agencies is giving rise to concern. Even if the agencies survived, what instruments would they have at their disposal to guarantee the quality of the oil? Honest undertakings and ones tempted to be dishonest can be found in any sphere of economic activity. I suggest that only the dishonest ones stand to gain from this Commission proposal.
Accordingly, I have tabled a series of amendments aimed at keeping 25% of aid coupled to production. I trust the House will support them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples