Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.9.3-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it is a pity that the Commissioner is not here because I wanted to start my reflection on the own-initiative report of which I am the rapporteur by saying, on the basis of today’s debate, that I am sure he will find the atmosphere in the agricultural sector much more friendly than that in the fisheries sector.
The subject of our own-initiative report is the mid-term review laid down by the reform known as Agenda 2000: it is an analysis stage which comes after a phase in which the second major reform of Community agricultural policy was introduced; over recent years, Community agricultural policy has taken on a much stronger, much more definite connotation than that intended by the signatories to the Berlin Agreement in 1999. This is because European agriculture is going through one of the most difficult, complex and sensitive periods of change in the existence of the common agricultural policy, and the difficulty currently facing agriculture – a difficulty which is quite obvious to the farmers, for whom the European effort is a major point of reference – was also mirrored in the preparatory work for the report, in the debate in committee and in the difficulty of putting together a report with a broad consensus.
In actual fact, there are two major philosophies underpinning this own-initiative report: on the one hand, there is the school of thought which asserts the need to preserve the current framework of the common agricultural policy and declares itself to be virtually opposed to any change which could alter the nature of the objectives or principles of the common agricultural policy as we know it; on the other hand, there is the school of thought which calls upon us to intervene with hefty measures, measures which would considerably alter the current legislative framework, to take into account the crisis situation in a number of sectors, to take into account eastward enlargement, under negotiation with the European Union, to take into account the WTO negotiations and, most importantly, to take into account the need, of which farmers are perfectly aware, for a direction to be found for the market and for production systems too which will guarantee an acceptable level of income in the long term.
This is therefore one of the thorny issues we need to address. The MacSharry and Agenda 2000 reforms ensured – so it is written – a reasonable and stable income for producers. It is no longer possible to monitor or verify this in many European countries. Apart from anything else, we do not yet have an analysis framework providing accurate data on changes in producers’ incomes which would allow us to carry out a review of the effects of Agenda 2000 in terms of income too.
There have been many exchanges of opinion and ideas, and I would like to comment on some of them for I have tabled a number of amendments on points of importance to me which have been the subject of lengthy debate. Firstly, we call for a direct aid system where the granting of direct payments is decoupled from production. This is certainly a viable method of dealing with the changes taking place in the agricultural sector, but the minimum level of income received by holdings must be taken into consideration as a parameter. We do not have this information at present and, above all, we cannot even remotely hope to make the income of holdings dependent solely on State intervention.
Secondly, there are two instruments which have been on the table for a long time: modulation and degressivity. Modulation has thus far been voluntary. In the Member States in which it has been applied, it has not yielded the results that might have been expected. I realise that modulation is a system for transferring resources and funds. It is a perfectly good system. Transferral, under the present proposal to switch from a voluntary to a compulsory system, is certainly a viable working instrument, but, if it is diminished by a mechanism which does not allow review or analysis according to the formula we have identified in the own-initiative report, then I can see it causing holdings major revenue problems and requiring very close analysis. Consider, for example, a large farming country, France. Just a few days ago, the Minister for Agriculture revealed that there was a surplus of EUR 300 million in the modulation system developed and updated over the last two years, which remained in the hands of the State and was not redirected to the agricultural holdings. If we then propose to combine modulation and degressivity, applying them side by side, we will find ourselves in the situation, clear from any econometric model, where the income of holdings is falling by, in the case of a medium-sized holding of 100 hectares, almost 30%. This aspect therefore warrants a great deal of attention.
I will close with one last point. I have been accused of failing to include the concept of multifunctionality in my own-initiative report. Well, my task was to produce an own-initiative report firmly anchored to the first pillar. The aspects relating to changes in the development of agriculture are dealt with exhaustively in Mrs Rodríguez Ramos’ report, with which I identify, which I voted for and which I fully support.
However, in the context of a report, such as Mrs Rodríguez Ramos’ report, on rural development in the world, we must on no account forget that agriculture is an undertaking, it is an economy, and it needs a first pillar which allows Europe to assume a strategic position on the major international commodities, especially in the light of the decisions of the US Government relating to the Farm Bill."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples