Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-18-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081118.4.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, first of all, before going into the more detailed content of this discussion, I would like to thank Mr Capoulas Santos for all the work that has been done on the report. I certainly do not underestimate the hard work and, as Mr Capoulas Santos mentioned himself, the number of amendments certainly did not make the task any easier in trying to find the middle ground for the landing zone.
We have suggested a two-step decoupling approach and I might be willing, together with the presidency, to do this in one step but postpone it until 2012 – the last application year – so the effect will be for the 2013 budget year. You had a point in asking why we should make it more complicated than necessary. As I said, Article 68 is to be used as a more flexible instrument but with certain limitations, because you want a situation where you can couple 10%. I think we should be careful not to have a situation where you decouple via the back door, via Article 68.
Last but not least on modulation, on rural development and the new challenges, I think we all agree that we need more money to face these new challenges. Climate change is at the top of our list. Then we need to find new ways on how to manage our water. Water is a scarce resource, but an extremely important one for agriculture, especially in some of our southern regions, so we need to use new technologies to use water in the most intelligent way possible to avoid wasting water. This could be done, but certainly needs money.
That is the reason why I have proposed this transfer from the first to the second pillar: 8% phased in over the years. I know that we might come back tomorrow on a compromise on this issue, but I would emphasise that money will certainly be needed, as it will be for biodiversity and for the milk axes that we have been putting into the system.
I will not go into details on progressive modulation. I know your views and I know that you say now ‘1, 2, 3’. I am sure that we will again be able to find a decent compromise on this issue.
I have only touched on some of the major issues, and I am sure that I will have the opportunity to respond after the debate, but I am committed, together with the presidency, to finding a decent compromise. We all know that you never get everything you want, so I think that it will be a question for all of us to accept that we have to ‘swallow some camels’ to be able to find a compromise that will be to the benefit of the European agricultural sector in a more globalised world.
We have now spent more than a year together discussing the health check, sometimes in very great detail, firstly on the basis of the Goepel report, and now finally on the basis of the Capoulas Santos report. I do not think I need to explain my gratitude for the constructive cooperation I have always had with Parliament, and that we have always tried to listen and find a compromise that was not too far away from each other.
As I have limited time, it will be totally impossible for me to go into all the details so I will concentrate on some of the more important ones, starting with the milk sector.
2007 has been a very, perhaps strange, but certainly instructive year. One thing we learnt during 2007 was that our quota system did not allow supply to meet demand. As a consequence, we saw prices on dairy products simply go through the roof. Quite a few farmers said to me this was nice as long as it lasted, but the result was that because of increased production responding clearly to the higher prices, we then saw a very steep drop in prices.
I think we can agree today that the sector is really struggling to get back some of the customers that left the milk or dairy sector because they thought prices were too high. I see therefore that Parliament is proposing an increase of 1% but only for two years, so a 2% increase taken forward to 2010.
I think it is important that we review the consequences of the decisions that we will be taking in the dairy sector, but 2010 will be too early and I think we should stick to 2011, whilst clearly indicating that we will be open to discussing everything in 2011. The fact is, however, that the quota system expires in 2015.
I have also learned from all the discussions we have had that there is strong pressure to get this milk fund. I agree that certain flanking measures should be adapted or adopted, and I am convinced that quite a lot can be done in the new Article 68.
I acknowledge that the present Article 69 is much too narrow and too restrictive to be used in a forward-looking way, so we are now opening up possibilities in the new Article 68. If we can reach a good combination between Article 68 and the new rural development possibilities, then I am quite sure we will find solutions to the specific problems we see in some regions.
On the single payment scheme, on de-coupling, the Commission proposes that we maintain the possibility to couple the payment in two or three areas – suckler cows, sheep and goats – because we acknowledge that you do face specific problems in those three areas. You also want to keep coupled payments for the male bovine premium, for protein crops and for dried fodder. My fundamental view is that it is important to decouple the system – this is actually a fundamental element of all the reforms that have been undertaken – and we need to look again at simplification to take any opportunity to simplify our system. I am, however, open to finding a solution that is less complicated than what we have suggested."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples