Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-11-Speech-2-247"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080311.31.2-247"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the first round of parliamentary discussions on what is referred to as the health check of the common agricultural policy will conclude tomorrow. This health check is not a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. It should further update the existing policy where appropriate, based on the experience gained since 2003, and adapt it to changed circumstances.
The Commission should take very serious note of our position. It is a good basis for the upcoming negotiations on the legislative package, as well as for the budget review after 2013.
We in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development have supported the continuation of the reform towards greater personal responsibility and market orientation while at the same time emphasising the aspects of food safety and of social and environmental responsibility – particularly with regard to current market development and the new challenges of climate policy – more strongly than we have done in the past. We also want greater flexibility for the Member States when changing the system – in other words, more opportunities to introduce further decoupling and the loosening of historical reference levels.
The debates in our committee have also revealed, however, that this is not sensible in all sectors, at least not before 2013. For livestock premiums or for states with full decoupling, but which have a strong livestock sector, a sudden change of system would result in negative structural interruptions in view of the current market situation. The same appears to be true with some of the smaller market regulations in the plant sector, such as, for example, the market regulations for potato starch, dry green fodder or rice, on which a regionally significant processing industry depends and has invested a great deal in recent years and has to service this with high interest rates.
The committee voted in favour of the introduction of a new, flexible instrument to promote dedicated environmental and region-specific production or particular sectors – in other words, Article 69 – and we have at the same time demanded that new measures be devised to protect the land against environmental crises and crises that are increasingly to be expected in view of the changing climate and increasing cross-linkage of agricultural markets. A new form of public-private risk management should also be tested with this instrument, which is urgently needed in view of other instruments being returned and the new imponderables.
A few brief words on degression and modulation: our farmers expect planning to be reliable and it is simply inappropriate to once again curtail and redeploy between 8 and 53% of direct income aid with a compulsory 5% modulation only four years after implementation of the last reform.
By any understanding of the financing of the development of rural areas, confidence is being destroyed here and structural interruptions provoked. These proposals specifically concern full-time farms and those that have improved their competitiveness in recent years through mergers into legal entities. We have put forward proposals, however, for how the general policy targets and the economic requirements can be aligned with each other.
We have to break new ground in the interest of sustainability and competitiveness. Above all we are grateful to all those who have cooperated on this own-initiative report and I would like to thank my colleagues and fellow Members across all the Groups in the Committee on Agriculture."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples