Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-10-Speech-2-138"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040210.6.2-138"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this area is extremely complex, but it is most important that we address it to ensure the continuing viability of our farms and rural areas.
Comparisons of farm income can be very difficult: they depend on the base year used – 1995 in this case – and the figures vary depending on whether you take an aggregate, a family, a household or an individual measure. We must compare like with like.
Irish aggregate farm income increased by 2.2% in 2003 to EUR 2.524 billion, and estimated direct payments of EUR 1.6 billion accounted for 64% of this figure. Our farm survey shows that the average family farm income fell by 5.8% in 2002 to EUR 14 900. There are large variations, depending on the size of the farm and the system of farming. For instance, in 2002 average farm family income on the 40% of farms classified as full-time was EUR 27 760. On the 60% of farms classified as part-time, the income was only EUR 6 590. However, farm household incomes are becoming increasingly diversified. The 1999-2000 household budget survey shows that almost 60% of farm household income now comes from non-farm sources, contributing to the future viability of many farms.
On the average farm income in the EU in 2003, we ranked eighth. According to the most recent Eurostat estimate, average income per full-time job equivalent, adjusted to inflation, fell by 0.6% in Ireland in 2003, compared to an average increase of 0.9% in the EU as a whole. The distribution of direct payments in Ireland may be more equitable than in other EU countries, as there are relatively few very large farms, particularly arable farms. While the top 20% in the EU receive 73% of direct aid, our farm survey shows that approximately 40% of payments went to the 20% of farmers with the highest family farm income.
The concept of crisis management systems needs careful handling. Public intervention in agricultural insurance systems would lead to cherry-picking by the private sector, and the European Union could be left covering the highest or uninsurable risks, which would be very expensive and lead to considerable budgetary problems.
I welcome the reduced rate of modulation agreed by the Council. A higher rate would mean a higher cut in direct payments and therefore in farm incomes. Before any rate is decided on, the first step should be to evaluate the Community's rural development needs, cost them and then set the appropriate rate to meet the cost.
I am opposed to a major redistribution of direct payments, as suggested. The purpose of the mid-term review reform is to promote competitiveness while securing the income of farmers in a situation where payments would no longer be coupled to production. I have always supported the concept of decoupling. The aim is to avoid a major disturbance of production patterns and land values. Farmers have established entitlements and any redistribution would lead to losses and gains. Redistribution would also impact on production decisions by farmers, whereas the intention was to respond to market signals rather than force change upon them because of a fundamental change in the level of support.
The CAP reform has changed the policy framework to ensure a more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture and food industry. The options for decoupling direct payments will allow these payments to be made safe from WTO challenges and so protect their contribution to farm incomes and to the rural economy."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples