Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-10-Speech-1-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030210.9.1-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Less than 10% of the world's agricultural production ends up in international trade. The overwhelming bulk is traded locally or nationally. This means that proposals intended to regulate trade in 10% of production, as is the case with the World Trade Organisation, must not lose sight of the effects of these measures on trade in the other 90%. I do not have time to go into all the aspects of the European proposal to the WTO, so I will restrict myself to the position of developing countries and the European model for multifunctional agriculture.
For some of the world's population, food is not something that can be taken for granted. We must keep a close eye on the interests of these population groups at the WTO discussions. These interests go further than simply breaking down tariff barriers and preferential access to the European market; preferential access does not necessarily result in an increase in the income of the developing countries and their people. A recent study has shown that complete liberalisation of trade only provides poor countries with a minimal increase in their income. Countries such as India and Nigeria are asking for the WTO agreements to be applied flexibly, and rightly so. They want to support and protect their agricultural sectors and the development of the countryside in order to offer their rural population some security of existence. These countries need subsidies in order to guarantee food security and to support small-scale agriculture.
I am therefore pleasantly surprised by the Commission's proposal for a Food Security Box and by the scope that Europe wants to offer these countries to support their own agriculture by means of subsidies. Export subsidies are destroying the world market. The Commission is, quite rightly, proposing to reduce these further. If other countries agree to this, the result may be an increase in prices on the world market. I would, however, like to point out to the Commission that this does not help everybody. As many as 43 countries in Africa are net importers of food. They will therefore be worse off if food prices on the world market increase. This is why, in addition to the anti-dumping measures, technical assistance for these countries is of great importance. The incomes of farmers in the European Union are under pressure. Trade liberalisation is primarily of importance to trade and the processing industry.
If Europe wants to retain its family-run farms, it will have to take measures that conflict with the principles of free trade. It will also have to act more effectively than it is doing at the moment. A study by the OECD shows that only a quarter of every euro of support that goes to agriculture ends up with the farmer. Further liberalisation without sufficient protection for the European agricultural model will result in a reduction in the number of farmers. Fortunately, the Commission’s proposal to the WTO is putting the case for the multifunctional agricultural model. There should still be the possibility of subsidies for aspects that do not disrupt trade, such as the environment, animal welfare and countryside development, but I hope that the Commission also realises that a viable agricultural sector in Europe needs sufficient scope to regulate its market. Because agriculture still does not operate like a bicycle factory, we need appropriate protection at our borders. This protection must be transparent. Food aid as a capped form of dumping is reprehensible. The Commission rightly highlights this in its proposal, along with other forms of agricultural support such as export credits, export guarantees and state trading enterprises.
Finally, the Commission's proposal is lacking a significant policy instrument that has a positive effect on the market and prices – I am referring to production control. This instrument is working properly for sugar and dairy products. The only discordant note sounded by this system is the dumping on the world market of surpluses caused by excessively high quotas. We should therefore not do away with the quota system, but quotas should be realistic. The quota for dairy products is 105% of consumption. If we brought this down to 100%, we would free the world market from dumped sugar and milk powder and we would at the same time offer our farmers a better price."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples