Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-13-Speech-2-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070213.20.2-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, this is the second time that we have had the opportunity to discuss the proposal on voluntary modulation, and I would again like to thank Mr Goepel for his report.
It is no big surprise that you have reconfirmed the views that were expressed last autumn and once again called on the Commission to withdraw its proposal. I know and I understand Parliament’s concerns about voluntary modulation. My position is no secret to you, and a repetition of your arguments and of my arguments is not necessary, but we have to face reality. Turning to solutions other than voluntary modulation, I would have preferred to ensure sufficient funding in our rural development policy, but the European Summit decided otherwise.
One thing is very clear to me: the European Parliament’s concerns do not fall on deaf ears. Although the Council has reaffirmed its wish to maintain its proposal, efforts are currently being made to accommodate your concerns. There have been concerns that voluntary modulation would unravel the common agricultural policy, but, as it stands now, all of the indicators are that voluntary modulation will only be used in a very limited number of Member States to boost their own rural development programmes.
As you will recall, we have proposed that the money has to be spent in line with almost all of the rules governing rural development. Furthermore, I believe that it is appropriate for Member States intending to apply voluntary modulation to carry out an impact assessment before its implementation, and we should also make sure to monitor carefully the implementation of the voluntary modulation, in particular as regards the economic situation of farmers. I believe also that this instrument should have a transitional, rather than permanent, character. Indeed, I am of the opinion that any future increase in the rate of compulsory modulation should lead to a corresponding reduction of the rate of voluntary modulation. Efforts to make such provisions within the context of this proposal would have the Commission’s full support.
As you know, it is my intention to look at voluntary and compulsory modulation when we have a discussion on the health check of the common agricultural policy. All in all, the Commission remains open to exploring feasible suggestions that may result in a compromise that is acceptable to Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission.
We want to be constructive, but you will also have to be constructive.
I want to close by raising an issue of great concern to me. We are on the verge of a new generation of rural development programmes. Member States have already invested in drafting sound national strategy plans and programmes to achieve the objectives to which the European Parliament is committed, i.e. competitive agriculture and forestry, environmental performance, creation of jobs and a lively social fabric in rural areas. We are at a crucial time for enabling a smooth start to these programmes.
The 20 % reserve in commitment and payment appropriations for rural development which the European Parliament has taken threatens to put this into danger. I am very concerned about this link and the fundamental problem it creates for the start of the new rural development policy. Mrs Grybauskaitė and I have outlined our concerned in detail in a joint letter to the chairmen of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Budgets. The reserve impedes a proper implementation of rural development policy. As Parliament strongly supports this policy, I hope that you will understand the problem that the reserve will cause. The reserve creates additional uncertainties and difficulties for Member States to design programmes, and this against a background of the reserve cuts in the rural development budget decided at the summit in December 2005. Approval of the rural development programmes will be delayed and the Commission can only start approving programmes if the appropriations required for all the programmes in the Union are available in the budget. Consequently, if the Commission cannot commit the 100 % amounts, Member States will have to withdraw their programmes or their proposals and submit revised proposals that take into account the reduction of the 20 %. If the reserve is lifted later, all rural development programmes will then have to be adapted accordingly and you might understand that this risks hampering the uptake of the programmes in the delicate starting phase.
We want to find an acceptable solution on voluntary modulation, but, meanwhile, let us not take our rural programmes as hostages. I count on you in resolving these problems."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples