Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-18-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081118.4.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you all at the start of this debate. This is the final act in a long and participatory process of discussion and reflection on the present and future of the common agricultural policy (CAP).
I would highlight the following: confirmation of the need for a common policy as a prerequisite for competitive and environmentally sustainable agriculture in Europe; the contributions made by the Commission to ensure that the CAP is fairer and more acceptable to society; the emphasis on simplification and cutting of red tape; confirmation of the proposal to give more freedom of choice to farmers in defining their productive options; financial reinforcement of rural development and expansion of its scope to the new challenges (energy, climate, water, biodiversity); introduction of the principle of progressive modulation; additional flexibility granted to Member States in managing the CAP (I am talking about Article 68); creation of a risk and crisis management system with Community cofinancing, and the positive general direction taken in discussions on the post-2013 model and in the European Union’s response to the World Trade Organization negotiations, aimed at a fair and reciprocal agreement for regulated international trade in agricultural products.
However, the Commission’s proposals also contain aspects which Parliament, and I as rapporteur, regard as less positive. As I have already mentioned on other occasions, the Commission’s proposals contain, in some aspects, for example with regard to the market management instruments and the milk sector, an overly liberal tone which may prove dangerous just at a time when there is enormous instability and volatility in the markets. There is also a lack of social sensitivity, which is quite clear in the proposal to exclude small farmers.
I also think that the Commission’s proposal with regard to social and territorial cohesion is off course, given that it suggests ending the payment redistribution mechanism under the new modulation. I also think that the Commission has not taken due account of certain sectors which are particularly vulnerable to the current crisis in the markets and which face a serious risk of abandonment given the proposed timetable and rate of decoupling up to 2013. This is the case with the sheep sector and that is why we have agreed to call these small CMOs (common organisation of the markets) as, although small, they are very significant and very politically, economically and socially important to certain regions of Europe where alternatives are very hard to find.
The report and the vote in the Committee on Agriculture aimed, by a large majority, to correct some of these less positive aspects.
The five compromises adopted in relation to the key elements of modulation are important proposals by Parliament. These are: the percentage and progressive nature of support for small farmers, giving greater freedom to Member States to set the minimum thresholds; the retention percentage under Article 68 and the enlargement of its scope; the broader scope of the insurance system, which is extended to the fishing industry; the issue of cofinancing of rural development, and the expansion of new challenges. Many other proposals by Parliament also represent positive contributions. I would highlight, for example, valuation of the employment factor in calculating the allocation of aid and respect for health and safety at work requirements in relation to the conditions for receiving said aid.
The Committee on Agriculture also adopted a very clear position on the most difficult aspect of this issue, namely the milk sector. This is a very important issue which must be carefully tackled, given the current market situation.
Despite the profound respect that I have for all points of view, some of which are totally contrary to mine in certain areas, but which still deserve to be respected, I feel that the position adopted in the Committee on Agriculture is fairly sensible. I should like to see this adopted in plenary and confirmed by the Council with the backing of the Commission. A prudent increase in production in two years’ time, adding to the 2% that we have decided on for 2008, and a final decision early in 2010 on the future of the sector, based on market developments, with a 4% increase in three years’ time, seems to me to be a fairly sensible position and perhaps the one which could form the final compromise.
I will end, Madam President, by stating my hope that this debate will serve to clarify positions and that we will able to achieve the consensus that agriculture and farmers expect from us. I hope that we all – Parliament, the Council and the Commission – are up to this challenge.
It has proved very arduous work which has involved, over many months, in fact over more than a year, a great deal of cooperation by Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the whole agricultural and rural world in the European Union. Throughout this period, I have had the opportunity to hear many opinions of organisations representing the agricultural sector and the rural world in various Member States and to dialogue with members of parliament and institutional representatives from many, in fact almost all, Member States and Community institutions, obviously starting here with the European Parliament.
I have taken part in various seminars and conferences and listened carefully to everyone, including through the media, in my search for the best possible synthesis. I must therefore thank all my colleagues who have enthusiastically participated in this debate and also all the political group coordinators. In particular I must highlight the role played by Mr Goepel, not only as coordinator of the PPE-DE Group, but also as rapporteur on the own-initiative report which preceded the reports being discussed here today.
I must also thank Chairman Parish for the way in which he conducted the work in our committee and for the excellent cooperation of the secretariat of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, given that they bore the hardest and most technically demanding part of the work.
Finally, I must thank the Commission, as represented by the Commissioner, for its readiness to cooperate, as also demonstrated by its departments, and also Mr Barnier for the way in which he continually corresponded with Parliament, even before the formal start of the French Presidency.
This exercise in enhanced cooperation has proved a good early example of the virtues of codecision, which I hope may enter into force on the full ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, hopefully as soon as possible.
This debate, with all its inherent agreements and disagreements, clearly shows the complexity of European agriculture in all its variety. It also shows, in exemplary fashion, the importance that Europe, its institutions and Parliament in particular attach to this subject. The 1 170 amendments tabled to the Commission’s proposals, particularly taking into account the fact that the period available was interrupted by the summer recess, illustrate the wide participation of Members in this debate.
However, the compromises reached between four of the main political groups in Parliament, with nearly 400 amendments on the most important issues being concentrated into six compromises, also reveal the Members’ sense of responsibility, spirit of compromise and readiness to yield ground.
As for the content of the report, which I regard as fairly balanced and capable of responding to current challenges and providing good guidelines for the future, I must say that Parliament acknowledges as positive and accepts many of the Commission’s proposals."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples