Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.5.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it has taken rather longer than expected, but we must discuss these important issues before turning to the less important ones.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our task is to vote on a Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget – the first this year – which was adopted by the Commission on 31 January and has already been adopted by the Council on its first reading. There are several aspects to this Supplementary and Amending Budget. It is intended to modify the remarks for budget line B7-541 in order to enable the European Agency for Reconstruction in the Balkans to extend its activity to Montenegro and cover its administrative costs. It aims to update the EUR/dollar exchange rate, as obliged by the Council Regulation on budgetary discipline. While the 2001 budget is based on a parity of EUR 1 = $ 0.91, the Commission will have to present the required adjustments to EUR 1 = $ 0.87. This will then give rise to what are really only virtual savings of EUR 245 million. EUR 60 million will be transferred from the reserve to finance the agreed BSE tests. And then there is the issue which is of crucial interest to us all, as is evident from the discussions and debates held over the last week: an additional EUR 971 million will be released to cushion at least some of the impact of the BSE crisis.
The figure of EUR 971 million is broken down as follows: EUR 700 million will be used to cover the 'purchase for destruction' scheme for cattle over 30 months, EUR 238 million will go towards the buying-in of beef in public stocks, and an extra EUR 33 million will be used to finance the additional BSE tests conducted on cattle over 30 months intended for human consumption. Let me make it clear from the outset that I am in favour of adopting the Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget, albeit in a modified form. I say “modified” because we should give some encouragement to the Member States to take on more responsibility for the common agricultural policy. So I support the draft, although I sympathise with those Members who want to reject this Supplementary and Amending Budget in its entirety.
My initial reaction was to say no to the draft as well. Since I became a Member of the European Parliament, I have had to defend the common agricultural policy at home. And that really is not an easy task. We spend almost half our budget on our agricultural policy, and almost a fifth of that goes on supporting beef production. But now that the beef market has collapsed, we are supposed to come up with almost EUR 1 billion to destroy the beef cattle which have been raised at such expense, because they have become unsaleable. And it is very difficult – if not well-nigh impossible – to explain to the general public, the taxpayers and consumers, why this has to be done. For one thing is clear: though this may be an enormous amount of money to cushion the initial impact of the BSE crisis now, it will not be enough for the rest of the year. It is the proverbial drop in the ocean. Or a tiny bit of sticking-plaster on a suppurating wound. And this suppurating wound is our common agricultural policy with its system of production incentives.
These mechanisms date back to a time when there was still a shortage of most foodstuffs. But these times are well and truly over. Today, there is a surplus – a glut – in all the key markets. Coupling financial support with production creates an incentive – indeed, a necessity – to increase production and rely on more and more intensive production methods. This intensification has a significant environmental impact and marginalises less productive locations. And we cannot even defend the system on social grounds, for while the large factory farms have constantly expanded, small family farms have gone to the wall, unable to survive under these conditions.
In total, 80% of EAGGF funding flows to less than 20% of farms. We have to break away from this system. We cannot merely continue to treat its symptoms: we have to find a cure. By its very nature, the system simply creates more and more problems. So let us use this latest crisis as a chance to overhaul our common agricultural policy. Let us use it as an opportunity for reform, focusing on the following objectives: maintaining a sufficient number of farms to preserve the environment and the cultural landscape, and recognising two core elements of the farmers' role, namely to produce high-quality foodstuffs while protecting the environment within the rural development framework. And, of course, also achieving one of the European Parliament's longstanding goals: the promotion of rural regions. However, this means supporting other forms of economic activity as well as agriculture.
Let us see the Supplementary and Amending Budget as the final step in our old agricultural policy – a step which has to be taken because no other instrument is available quickly. But when we come to adopt the next financial measure, we must have a clear outline of a reformed agricultural policy. For one thing is clear: although as a budget specialist, I have to focus on the financial aspects, I am well aware that the current crisis is not a financial crisis at all but a crisis of our agricultural policy. And the sooner we set about correcting the problem, the better.
Now that two million cattle are to be slaughtered and destroyed in an effort to ease the burden on the markets, there is talk of an ethical problem. Ladies and gentlemen, two million older cattle are slaughtered every year in Europe. This is business as usual in other words. But as a rule, these animals end up on the dinner table, not in an incineration plant. However, I think it is a little far-fetched to talk about ethics. Especially when there is talk of a 'Herod premium' in relation to a calf slaughter programme. Good heavens, we do pride ourselves on our Western Christian roots, don't we – so I would just remind everyone that King Herod killed new-born male infants. He killed people, not animals. And despite all our love and understanding for animal protection, we should leave the church out of it. There is a difference between humans and animals. Let us not forget that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples