Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-140"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.9.3-140"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to very sincerely thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Fiori and Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, for their work, and I would also like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, under the chairmanship of Mr Daul, for its extensive contributions to the debate on the mid-term review. As I see it, both reports fundamentally address what the shape of the common agricultural policy we want for the twenty-first century should be. Trying to answer this question has stimulated a wide-ranging discussion of new ideas. And new ideas are exactly what we need!
So what are the budgetary implications of Agenda 2000? As has been confirmed today, we have used EUR 2 billion less every year than was originally envisaged. We are therefore using taxpayers' money very responsibly, and that is why, with an eye to enlargement, we have suggested that direct payments should be made over a period of 10 years, so that on the one hand the fifteen Member States are not overstretched in budget terms and on the other hand so as not to obstruct the restructuring process in the candidate countries. However, it is also evident from this that the agriculture budget, as the budget of the only fully communitarised policy at EU level, should not be exploited to finance other policies, especially if we are expecting the agricultural sector simultaneously to perform services that it can never afford to provide on the basis of market prices.
I would like to conclude by addressing a further point that goes beyond the mid-term review but which is nevertheless important for the future, and which is therefore something that we need to bear in mind when we are considering how to develop the common agricultural policy in future. As far as I am concerned, just like the new Farm Bill, this issue is not sufficiently covered in the two reports. No matter how willing I was to support the Everything But Arms initiative to support the world's poorest countries, because it helped us a great deal in Doha and will continue to help us, I nevertheless feel that I need to urge some caution about the idea of extending these principles to all developing countries. I do not want to cover all the issues that have occurred to me during this debate; I would like to restrict myself to just two.
If the European Union is to open up its agricultural markets to developing countries without any restrictions, then mechanisms need to be found beforehand to prevent multinationals persuading farmers in developing countries to abandon their traditional land management methods for large-scale monoculture of products suitable for export. Because that would achieve exactly the opposite of what Parliament has demanded on many other occasions. If, in addition, genetically modified plants are cultivated in developing countries, for example for fighting disease and improving food provision, the EU cannot at the same time refuse imports solely on the grounds that they contain GMOs.
Ensuring food safety and food quality are issues of vital importance for the acceptance of the common agricultural policy. These issues therefore need to be gone into in greater depth if we want to address our consumers' justified concerns. I would like to emphasise that point too in the mid-term review.
Lastly, I would like to thank the rapporteurs once more for the enormous effort they have devoted to bringing together and coordinating widely varying views and interests in a convincing way.
I believe that a debate of this kind needs to build on two principles. Any future common agricultural policy needs to be sustainable across the board – economically, socially and also environmentally. Furthermore, it must match what society wants and address the challenges of the moment. But just what does society expect? The answer is not necessarily as clear and straightforward as we might instinctively imagine. Agricultural policy needs to take account of various aspects. The citizens of the European Union know very well that agriculture does not just produce food these days. They therefore expect it to fulfil a variety of roles. It is therefore up to us to support all those functions.
When we talk about the interests of society, we should not forget that farmers are also part of our society, so that their needs also have to be taken into consideration if we are to ensure that our agriculture is socially sustainable. We need to look at society's expectations as a whole and at the same time to consider the concerns of rural communities. I have always said that reform of the CAP is a continuing process. We began that process back in 1992, ten years ago, and we now have an opportunity to carry it forward with the mid-term review. This mid-term review will also give us a chance to establish what adjustments we should make to instruments under the CAP in order to meet society's expectations more effectively. I say that because if things are going wrong in a given sector, we need to act now. We cannot wait until 2006, even if the Berlin Summit did not stipulate any specific review remit. I am pleased that the Fiori report specifically recognises this.
However, we also intend to take account of the possible impact of the US Farm Bill in our analysis, and also of the work due to be published by the US Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, the FAPRI, probably at the beginning of June. The draft of our mid-term review will then be presented on 10 July. That will above all make it possible for us to take on board the comments you have made in your reports and in this House today.
The Fiori report contains a great many specific ideas, but because of the divergence of interests in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and I assume in this House in general, they are not always totally consistent. For example, on the one hand the report calls for a system of direct aid not linked to production, but on the other hand it calls for production-related aid to be increased in various areas. Of course, all these points need to be discussed in detail. However, you should not forget that careful preparatory work is also needed for those sectors for which no review was agreed upon in Berlin, such as sugar, fruit, vegetables, olive oil and so on. Only then will the Commission be in a position to make any proposals. So we will not be in a position to present a second package until next year.
When it comes to rice, however, I do not think that we should wait for the impact of the Everything But Arms initiative to be felt in full. I think that we should be considering now how to react to the challenges associated with that initiative. I am pleased to see that although the Fiori Report deals primarily with markets, that is to say the first pillar of the CAP, it recognises that rural development should be given a higher profile. I therefore consider the references to eco-conditionality very interesting. Although the US Farm Bill has now been adopted, we should keep up our efforts to make our common agricultural policy more viable for the future. I say that not only because the new Farm Bill is very much a case of do as I say, not do as I do. This policy belies all the United States' talk over the years about a trade-oriented agenda. That is unacceptable and you can be sure that I will continue to criticise this.
However, I am also just as convinced that we in the European Union should not make the same mistake and back-pedal on the common agricultural policy. Just the opposite, in fact. We should continue along the present path of reinforcing the multifunctional aspects of our agricultural policy. This will particularly help us in the WTO context, where the Americans' behaviour has been sharply criticised by most of their WTO partners.
That brings me to Mrs Rodríguez Ramos' report. The motion for a resolution generally takes the same line as the Commission on the future direction and role of rural development policy. In particular, I believe that the further transfer of funds from the first pillar to the second pillar gives an important signal. If we transfer some 10% of agricultural expenditure from the EAGGF to the second pillar we will not be able to achieve the much-vaunted objectives adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the Gothenburg Summit in July last year.
Nevertheless, the common agricultural policy is expected to contribute to sustainable development. It is to attach greater weight to promoting more healthy and high-quality products, environmentally friendly production methods, renewable primary products and the protection of biodiversity. That is why I also support the statement in the Ramos report that the first and second pillar of the common agricultural policy were conceived as a coherent whole and must complement each other."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples