Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-15-Speech-3-224"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060215.15.3-224"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, the farming sector is dependent on many factors, not all of which the commercial sector regards as risks at all, and it is for that reason that the common agricultural policy has always protected it from certain risks, and, in the past, intervention in the form of guaranteed prices and guaranteed sales for important products provided specific farms with income guarantees. However, this resulted in a distribution of aid that very much favoured larger holdings to the detriment of the smaller ones. In the end, the distribution of payments was such that 80% of the money was going to 20% of the farmers.
These also resulted in partial surpluses being generated in a region of the European Union that is one of the biggest importers of foodstuffs in the world, because this state intervention had given rise to a sort of vacuum effect. These surpluses were then sold on the world market for billions in a tax-subsidised dumping operation, the consequence of which was that in some countries, mainly in the developing world, regional markets were destroyed.
Following the reforms, we have therefore attempted to at least start to put an end to this, but the money is still being distributed in the same ratio. We have a situation where highly rationalised businesses get EUR 120 000 per employee per year, while the majority of farmers get less than a tenth of that.
Now that we are considering whether we need to initiate a new system of crisis and risk management, we need to correct the distribution of State aid in favour of rural farms. This is nothing to do with large and small holdings – it is to do with the production method, in other words with where workers are actually employed.
We – and I as the rapporteur – take the view that, of the options you have listed here, we obviously need to look into the first option of insurance against natural disasters; this already occurs, but just needs to be put on a more systematic basis.
Option 2, regarding whether there is or should be a mutual fund, is an interesting consideration, but, as I said earlier, it should be made clear here too that the payments that farmers have to make to these funds must take account both of the scale of production and of the farmer's ability to pay, so that the new system does not end up once again in inequalities to the detriment of rural farming.
It is also important for farmers themselves to be involved in this insurance, in other words for there to be cofinancing from the farms, so that we do not end up with state protection, replacing one system with the other, that is to say bringing the system we have just abolished back to life under a different name. Normal risks must largely be allowed for and managed by farmers and farm managers themselves on the basis of their business knowledge.
Our main criticisms are reserved for Option 3. This relates to providing basic coverage against income crises. Natural disasters and unpredictable risks obviously always result in loss of income, in other words to economic strain. However, we must not run the risk of this coverage against income crises taking us back to the old system of guaranteed incomes via state intervention. It will be clear from our report just how careful we have been about this.
Nevertheless, some groups have concentrated on this area in their amendments, and have at least said that we should look into the possibility of supporting these measures and the connection with the WTO. To that we say that the reforms dismantled the old-style intervention system, and it must not be replaced."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples