Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-06-Speech-1-162"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050606.17.1-162"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank you for the very valuable and constructive contribution you have made with your opinion on the rural development regulation. I am convinced that your concerns, particularly substantial on the first and second axes, have helped us to understand better the key issues that are important to the European citizens whom you represent in this Parliament.
Some of you mentioned modulation money to be targeted only against the first and the second axis. This is not possible, because once the modulation amounts are made available they are part of the programming as a whole and should be allocated based on needs identified in the national strategic programmes.
On Natura 2000, we have to strike a delicate balance. Rural development funds can, and should, contribute, but they can never be the only source of funding to solve this problem. It is very important for me to underline that there must be other sources so that rural development is not the only banker.
I believe that with our new regulation, including the improvements made by the European Parliament, we will have a solid basis for our rural development in future. However, we also need the money, which many of you have mentioned tonight. The financial perspective will be the moment of truth. I hope I can count on your support to make it possible to maintain as much money as possible in this very important area.
I thank you once again for your excellent work. I heard Mr Mulder say that the rapporteur had given a vintage performance. I completely agree. It has been a pleasure for me to cooperate with the members of the Committee on Agriculture.
I should like to comment on a few of the issues raised here tonight. First of all, the minimum spending rates, which several Members mentioned. The Commission is open to a balance between axes, leaving more margin to the Member States. However, the proposed rate of 8% for Axis 3, compared to the 15% proposed by the Commission, is too little. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, can contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interest of farmers and their families and it is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy.
Someone mentioned the need for Members to be allowed to prioritise rural development funds on the third axis. They have plenty of room to do this with the minimum rates that we have proposed. But we also need to ensure that Member States have a minimum of balance so that they address the variety of challenges in rural areas.
Regarding young farmers: they need to have the business plan. Apart from agri-environment, the Commission is not willing to make other measures compulsory. If there is a real problem for young farmers in a Member State, the national strategy should address it and propose the appropriate measures. On the other hand, the business plans should not be over prescriptive at this stage. If needed, additional provisions can be included in the implementing regulations. As Commissioner McCreevy already mentioned, we also accept the extension of support for young farmers to subsidise loans.
I also noted your comments on the grace period for young farmers concerning the minimum standards. Let me be very clear on this: there cannot be a blank cheque for young farmers. In principle, they have to comply with cross-compliant standards just as other farmers have to do. However, I am prepared to consider one exception to this principle: when a young farmer takes over a farm that has problems in meeting one standard or another, he can identify this deficit in his business plan and provide for the action needed to address the problems. In this case, it would make sense to give him some time to adapt and during this period we would not penalise him for non-compliance with the standards concerned.
On less-favoured areas, you asked me to look at the inclusion of socio-economic criteria and phasing-out periods for areas that have lost their status. The Commission proposed a change as regards the present intermediate less-favoured areas. Mountain areas and specific less-favoured areas remain as they are today.
Member States are requested to confirm or to modify their current delimination in their programmes. But for the intermediate less-favoured areas, there is an agreement that we need to change the approach in the light of the criticism from the European Court of Auditors, which is also shared by this Parliament. The Commission recognises that more time is needed for this work and that we need to review the criteria we have proposed so far. Let us, however, keep in mind that the criteria we use have to be objective to the WTO to be able to fit into the green box. In this context, a phasing-out period for the existing intermediate less-favoured areas can be considered.
In 2008, the Commission will present to Parliament and to the Council a report accompanied by a proposal in view of an entry into force in 2010.
You also suggested we bring the co-financing rate for the outermost regions and the Greek islands up to 85%, as is proposed in the cohesion policy regulation. Please let me explain why we proposed a slightly different approach. Firstly, like you, I believe that the co-financing rates for these regions should be higher. This is why we proposed a co-financing rate that is actually 5% higher for each axis. However, it is good to maintain a certain differentiation between the axes to express the importance that we attach to the second and the fourth. The cohesion policy proposal does not distinguish between axes and, therefore, has no such differentiation. In addition, we offer in our proposal a number of specific advantages to operators in the outermost regions. Such specific advantages do not exist under the cohesion policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples