Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-14-Speech-4-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050414.23.4-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Commission is well aware of the severity of the drought situation in Portugal. It understands the concerns and is fully committed to assist Portugal. My colleague, Commissioner Fischer Boel, met the Portuguese Minister of Agriculture, Mr Silva, on 6 April 2005 in relation to this issue.
The Portuguese authorities can also use the
regulation on state aid. Over a period of three years, up to EUR 3 000 per farmer can be granted in aid without the Commission being notified, provided that, among other conditions, the total amount for the period does not exceed EUR 17 832 000.
There are three sets of instruments that are of particular importance in assisting Portuguese farmers. The first concerns market support and direct aid, where the Commission has already acted. It has adopted two decisions: one on 4 March to increase the advance payments for the bovine premiums for 2004 to 80%, and another on 7 April to allow the use of set-aside land for animal feeding in the affected regions.
Three more decisions are currently in preparation. The first concerns a temporary derogation from the density requirements of the regulation on the conversion of arable land to extensive livestock farming. It introduces a corrective correlation coefficient to be applied to the number of livestock units recorded on the holding. Another decision will extend the use of set-aside land for the feeding of animals to the whole continental territory of Portugal.
In this context, I also want to mention the Portuguese request for transfer of intervention stocks. Traditionally, the Commission is opposed to such transfers in light of abundant market supplies. Commissioner Fischer Boel has, in discussion with the Portuguese Minister of Agriculture, accepted the particularly difficult circumstances due to the prolonged drought in Portugal. She has asked the services of the Directorate-General for Agriculture to discuss the arrangements with Portuguese officials with regard to the disposal of the transferred stocks.
A third decision will authorise, under certain conditions, the advance payment of a number of premiums. These include an advance of 80% of the amount of the suckler cow premium, and 50% of the sheep, goats and dairy premium for 2005. Under Article 28(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, the single farm payment might be advanced as well, provided that it is not paid out before 16 October at the earliest and subject to controls being carried out.
The second instrument concerns rural development. When natural disasters occur, re-programming is possible. However, this possibility seems limited as we approach the end of the programming period and resources are scarce. Portugal asked that farmers continue to receive rural development payments even if certain conditions cannot be met due to the drought.
At the end of January 2005, the Portuguese authorities requested recognition of the drought as a
under Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 and to accept derogations to certain conditions concerning the agri-environment measure.
Application of a
requires a number of objective criteria, in particular the severity of the drought and the quantification of the consequences on agriculture and the farming economy. Some reports are already available and paint an initial picture of the expected consequences. On the basis of the information available, the Commission has no objection to the Portuguese request. However, Portugal will be asked for a more comprehensive report.
Portugal may decide to compensate farmers through state aid for income losses resulting from severe drought. They have to notify their plans to the Commission. The Commission will do its best to approve such plans quickly. However, it is essential to prove that the losses due to a climatic event reached a threshold of 20% or 30%; secondly, that there is a direct link between the losses and the adverse weather conditions; and thirdly, that no over-compensation occurs."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples