Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-23-Speech-4-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031023.5.4-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as Mr Jové Peres as has just said, we have placed on the table a new stage in the process of the reform of our agricultural policy concerning cotton, olive oil and tobacco, with a view to bringing these areas into line with the general system, which is now that of the common agricultural policy, with the same objectives: no longer supporting production but supporting producers’ incomes by transferring a significant proportion of the current expenditure on production to a single farm payment scheme.
As has just been said, it is true that the cotton, olive oil and tobacco sectors have very specific characteristics and that their production is concentrated in regions which, in general, are less developed. That is why the Commission has taken account of the economic, social and environmental effects of total decoupling in these sectors.
As regards cotton, we calculated the proportion to be transferred to the new single decoupled payment, which totals 60%, with a view to allowing cotton production to continue, whilst enabling producers to achieve margins similar to those of competing crops. However, in order to reduce the negative effects on the environment, we are also proposing maximum area limits, which are in fact below the areas planted during the reference period for the allocation of the new area payment. We must therefore expect a decrease in cotton production and we are aware that this reform will require adjustments on the part of the sector. That is why we have also proposed that it should be accompanied by rural development measures. Thus, there will be an impact, and that impact will have to be accompanied by rural development measures.
With regard to olive oil, at present we are also seeking to achieve better market orientation and greater stability of farmers’ incomes on the one hand and the preservation of olive groves where they offer a clear social and environmental advantage on the other hand. We have therefore proposed that the Member States should retain 40% of their current aid for payments linked to production in order to finance, in the form of national envelopes, aid for the preservation of olive grove that offer these advantages. This aid is intended to cover the costs of maintaining the olive trees, independent of any support for production or harvests. Because we are aware of the diversity of regional situations, we feel that the Member States should have the capacity to establish the levels of the payments so that they can adapt the amount of aid according to the local situation in order to ensure that it reaches the areas where it is most needed.
Finally, as regards tobacco, our proposals are also based on an extended impact assessment. We analysed all of the direct and indirect implications of the current market organisation, from the point of view of production and from the point of view of the impact of various options on agricultural incomes and on employment in the different regions where tobacco is produced. We consulted producers, we consulted local representatives in producing regions during a forum which brought together all of the interested parties, and we reached the conclusion that the reorientation of tobacco production was essential. We must not forget that even now the revenue of many farms does not cover the variable production costs.
Our study also shows that this reorientation of production may, of course, have a negative impact on employment in the sectors at both ends that are linked to the tobacco economy, even though we do not have any precise assessment of the global and local impact. There is no doubt that tobacco production is important for the economy of certain regions today and there is no doubt that its disappearance will have consequences from that point of view, which we hope to limit. Therefore, unlike the proposals for cotton and olive oil, we have adopted a specific approach which first and foremost involves entirely decoupling small farms – those where production is below 3.5 tonnes – in order to ensure immediately that these small structures continue to receive the full income support they currently receive.
As far as restructuring is concerned, we are proposing additional financing, by transferring a proportion of the funds currently used for direct aid for production to a restructuring envelope, which would bolster the existing rural development funds of producing regions, thus helping them to support diversification.
This form of redeployment, which involves using existing money to benefit restructuring, forms part of the Commission’s proposals, on the understanding that it would be up to producers and those involved in the regions concerned to lay down the most apt measures from among the array of “rural development” measures available.
Consequently, our proposals in these three sectors take account both of the general rules, which we hope are now those of the common agricultural policy, and specific characteristics. These three sectors differ a great deal from the other major crops, they differ a great deal from each other, and our proposals seek to reflect this diversity, whilst remaining faithful to our general principles."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples