Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.6.2-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my political group considers the Commission’s proposal for the mid-term reform of the common agricultural policy to be unacceptable. We are dealing with a reform of the CAP which is unprecedented in its scale, which is more a radical reform involving budgetary restrictions in view of enlargement, and the fundamental proposal is to dismantle the organisation of the markets. It coincides with a greater liberalisation of exchanges, with an increase in US competition, resulting from the increased support stemming from the Farm Bill and, in cases such as rice, from the increase in imports resulting from the application of the Everything but Arms initiative.
The Commission’s proposals on the reduction of subsidies and on the reforms of the common organisations of the market will require increasing competitiveness, but this can only mean more intensive production which will increase food safety risks and environmental impact. Through its proposal, the Commission intends to improve the European Union’s negotiating position within the World Trade Organisation, by anticipating supposed demands. However, in negotiations, to grant prior concessions sometimes leads to double concessions. The main problem with the Commission’s proposal is decoupling. If it is applied, agricultural activities would cease in the least productive farms and areas. Faced with lower market prices and subsidies decoupled from production, the farms with less gross margin would decide not to face the production costs. In areas with lower yields, in addition to agricultural activity, the economic activities linked to it would also disappear, and this would create unprecedented problems in economic, social, environmental and land planning terms. We cannot expect aid for rural development, with all its restrictions, to compensate for these defects.
In my opinion, decoupling is ethically unacceptable. It would merely consist of remuneration for ownership of land, and therefore, as well as reducing agricultural activity, would lead to speculation in the land market. Furthermore, the granting of aid based on the average aid received over the last three years would perpetuate the existing imbalances between farms, sectors and regions.
A CAP based on decoupling would be contrary to cohesion because it would restrict the granting of aid to an historical basis, it would promote inactivity in areas with natural difficulties and would promote inactivity in areas with natural difficulties and concentrate activity in areas with the most intensive agriculture. It would create problems of depopulation and reduction in economic activity in the least-favoured areas.
Furthermore, decoupling would make land more expensive and promote speculation, creating a dual market of plots with the right to aid and plots without that right. This would make it difficult for young farmers to establish themselves, creating a delicate situation of generational contrast. It would increase costs and would allow only the largest farms to survive. However, it would be well received by farms whose owners are close to retirement age, who would see that it was possible to receive aid by reducing activity to a minimum.
In summary, all the negative aspects of the Commission’s proposal boil down to a financial problem resulting from the intention to carry out enlargement with no additional budget. The Commission’s proposal would benefit the food industry and distribution, which will be able to increase their profit margins by buying raw materials more cheaply. It is very unlikely that consumer prices will be reduced, consumers will not benefit and the consequences will be absolutely negative for farmers and for the whole of society.
We cannot reduce the protection of farmers by dismantling borders, demand that they produce food of a high quality and with a high level of food safety, look after the environment and keep the rural fabric alive, without providing them with adequate compensation. We must provide adequate compensation which stimulates them to carry on with their activities and not to abandon them.
We must rebalance the support given to the different types of farms, sectors and regions. Society needs active agriculture, with adequate numbers of farmers and farms able to guarantee a balanced management of land, with varied economic activity and products which are safe for the consumer.
But for us, unfortunately, the Commission’s proposals move in the completely opposite direction."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples