Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.13.3-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, to ensure that the first harvest can be gathered after 15 August 2001, against the difficult background of the BSE crisis and as a matter of urgency, the Commission has been prompted to propose amendments to the Council Regulation establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops. This proposal is one of the measures in the seven-point plan being submitted to Parliament by the Commission which would enable certain land which is currently set aside to be put back into cultivation for crops such as clover.
However, if we confine ourselves to lifting the set-aside requirement only for organic farming, we shall be making no more than cosmetic changes. The Commission made this proposal too restrictive by limiting set-aside production to organic farming, not through any admiration for organic farmers, but because it did not want to chip away at the WTO agreements by adopting a measure which would favour all EU producers. In fact, however, depending on the state of the crisis in health safety, under the WTO agreements, an amendment of the rules by Member States does not constitute a violation of its agreements, which the Economic and Social Committee also pointed out.
Furthermore, if the health of consumers and the survival of farmers are at stake, it will be necessary to have the courage to review these agreements. George W. Bush had no qualms when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The crucial thing now is to take a quick initial decision to enable farmers to sow their crops as soon as possible. The best solution would have been to allow conventional farmers to sow set-aside land with protein crops before 15 August 2001, but the Commission did not accept this.
Commissioner, a compromise has been put to you by the entire Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for 2001 which, in addition to organic farming, concerns all agricultural holdings which take part in an agri-environment programme. Then, from 2002, this measure could be opened up to the conventional sector.
This isolated proposal should be but a first step towards a more complete reform of the common agricultural policy.
This decision to amend the Regulation as a matter of urgency will be seen by producers as a sign of hope. Europe is not abandoning them and does not want them to carry the can for a situation of which they are very often the victims.
Aside from its urgency, this measure follows on directly from the White Paper on food safety which included in its proposals the incorporation of problems associated with the production of animal feed.
The proposal also addresses the problem of the production of vegetable protein needed to ensure suitable feedingstuffs for bovine animals. There is a deficit in such production in Europe as a result
of the Blair House agreements. The set-aside arrangements laid down resulted in arable land lying fallow while, at the same time, livestock were being fed on animal protein, including some from animal meal. In order to enable all livestock to be once again fed with more wholesome feedingstuffs, and in order to overcome the BSE crisis, it is essential that the set-aside arrangements be amended so as to encourage production of fodder crops.
Your proposal, Commissioner, admittedly constitutes a step in the right direction, although the change proposed is only marginal in relation to the Regulation as a whole. The change is of simply symbolic value but we in this House could go further and use it as the trigger for a debate leading to the eventual reform of Agenda 2000.
The aim of the measures proposed is to move, initially, from set aside towards arrangements which are designed to increase crop rotation, but only in the organic farming sector. The effect of such arrangements would be to enhance the use of certain set-aside land by the planting of crops such as broad beans, kidney beans, lentils, chick peas, lupin, vetch, alfalfa, fenugreek, sweet clover, clover, white clover, field beans, peas and others. This would have a positive effect in terms of promoting a more natural approach to livestock rearing because it would be associated with the production of fodder. In addition, it would have a positive impact on the environment, since we now know that set aside is often harmful to the environment.
Rather than encouraging mass production of protein and oleaginous crops and promoting rotation through payments linked to area or to volumes, this adjustment to the rules will allow the partial lifting of the set-aside requirement in order to grow fodder legumes not for human consumption.
It represents a step in the direction of reform of the CAP along the lines of high-quality livestock farming and extensive production which we would all like to see. The question is whether this should be limited to boosting organic farming on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 or whether it is possible to go further. In the latter case, conventional farm holdings should be allowed to benefit from the same possibilities if they are willing to restrict themselves to planting only fodder crops on their set-aside land.
The obligation to complement the growing of cereals with legumes and fodder crops in order to receive subsidies can thus contribute towards establishing ecological cycles and improving the soil. Such a commitment, associated with good farming practice, would permit the restoration of good rotation of crops, such as is found in organic farming."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples