Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-385"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-03-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Agriculture2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040309.14.2-385"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-03-09-Speech-2-3862
lpv:speaker	lp:Rijk van Dam2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on improving safety at sea (2003-11-20--2004-04-21)3 member; CONT (2003-01-29--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2002-03-18--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-09-18--2004-04-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, decoupling support from production is said to give European agriculture a head start in the WTO negotiations, or so Commissioner Fischler always maintains. European agricultural policy has meanwhile been adapted, but the effects within the World Trade Organisation are still not visible. What is worse, other trading blocs do not seem to want to put an end to their trade-distorting support. I am therefore on my guard when the Commission justifies the decoupling of cotton premiums by using the argument that the World Trade Organisation insists on it. From experience, we know that this argument is flawed. After all, the European Union accounts for not even 3% of the world's cotton production, while the European Union imports 48% of its cotton requirements duty-free. The claim that European government support is distorting the world market for cotton is very impudent indeed. In that light, the reform of the cotton sector is not so much needed from the point of view of the World Trade Organisation, as it is with a view to a lively countryside. This reform must focus on improving the quality and, where possible, maintaining employment in this sector. Agricultural subsidies, however, should not be used as a kind of structural fund. It is important for the financial impact of reform to be closely monitored and to intervene in good time, where necessary. Support to the tobacco sector is of an order that is entirely different from that for the production of cotton. The summit of Gothenburg's decision to reduce the support for tobacco production was the right one. Unlike cotton, tobacco is not simply an agricultural product. Its use is carcinogenic and leads to heart and vascular diseases in many people. Given that on the one hand, in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, we talk about the health risks of minimal residual values of pesticides on our food, it is then absurd on the other hand, to spend EUR 1 billion annually on the production of tobacco. In my view, decoupling, alternative crops and modulation for the benefit of rural development cannot be introduced quickly enough in this sector."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph