Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-174"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-01-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Young farmers in the Union2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010116.10.2-174"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-01-16-Speech-2-1752
lpv:speaker	lp:Efstratios Korakas2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Kommounistiko Komma Elladas (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (1999-07-21--2001-02-07)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-04--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the first part of the motion for a resolution in the report repeats the now familiar findings on the poor situation and prospects of young farmers in the European Union. However, no mention is made of why this should be so, given that the previous two Community support schemes promoted two programmes for the benefit of young farmers, which the European Union vaunted as a panacea which would solve all the problems faced by young farmers and reverse the negative trend. This conscious omission runs throughout the resolution, which fails to mention three basic factors which, unless they are dealt with, will render the third Community programme for young farmers equally ineffectual. These factors are, first, that the CAP, especially in its post-1992 form and following Agenda 2000, does not safeguard a viable income for most small or medium-sized farming households, or a survival income for the heads of these households, which is why no one wants to invest anything at all in the farming sector, however many grants there may be – not that there are that many – because not only is it unprofitable, it does not even afford a basic income. Secondly, there is usually nobody to apply the incentives to; in other words, because of the quotas, young farmers have no reason to work, given that the quotas have been used up for all the products and they must wait for a national stock to be created and distributed to young farmers or buy quotas, in which case, good luck to them. Thirdly, however high the incentives, the terms and conditions are such that they are more suited to large farmers and exclude small and medium-sized farmers. The requirement for very large cultivated areas, even in island regions, is a typical example. This requirement becomes prohibitive when combined with quotas. In other words, the Community requires young farmers to have a large farm and large-scale production, but nigh prevents them from producing anything with the quota system. This incongruous situation is not, in my view, an inadvertent, random choice by the European Union. It is deliberate policy, the purpose being to ruin poor, medium-sized farmers and support large farms or rather large companies in the agricultural sector. That is why we cannot vote in favour of this report; it is because it conceals the real reasons. Even these grants, when they are given to poor, medium-sized farmers, are meted out in drips and drabs and Greece is a typical example here. I do not know, for example, if Mr Fischler is aware of the fact that our grants for young farmers have still not been received, despite the fact that the government used this type of argument to saturation point in order to win votes last April."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph