Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.15.3-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This proposal for a revision of the financial perspective 2000-2006 stems from the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) adopted by the September 2003 European Council, which provided for a reduction in direct payments (subheading 1a), known as ‘modulation’, for the purposes of financing rural development policy (subheading 1b). This proposal raises certain fundamental questions regarding the CAP and agriculture spending. We do not deny the need to grant structural aid to the rural world and to increase that aid. In the debate on the reform of the CAP and the new financial perspective 2007-2013, we tabled practical proposals aimed at increasing appropriations for rural development, with specific regard to compensation payments and organic farming. This must not be done, however, at the expense of the market pillar of the CAP, or as part of a philosophy of replacing this pillar with rural development, as put forward by the British Presidency. Transferring funds from the market pillar to rural development is a way of introducing cofinancing by the back door, which amounts to the renationalisation of CAP costs.
This proposal also undermines the principles of modulation and capping, which should help to redistribute aid more fairly among countries, production sectors and farmers; in other words, cutting aid to the major holdings ..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples