Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-11-Speech-2-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080311.31.2-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Goepel report offers a good compromise between the Commission’s daring proposals and the concerns expressed by our farmers. Well done, Mr Goepel, for providing us with this report; it was not easy, we know. Some good proposals have come out of it.
This is the case firstly with the system of direct aid that needs to be modified, bearing in mind that the Member States must have greater flexibility to implement this change.
If it has to go ahead, decoupling should take account of the difficulties certain sectors are currently experiencing, particularly the livestock sector and some areas of crop production that are very important for many regions, such as flax and hemp fodder, which should benefit from a suitable transition period.
The way it is proposed, modulation seems too great and makes the first pillar unbalanced. The measures associated with set-aside must be able to be reformed, but the Commission should first clearly define instruments that enable the benefits it brings to be protected, particularly as regards biodiversity. The revision and strengthening of Article 69 would also be a way of providing effective financial support for weakened areas, such as mountainous regions, for restructuring sectors in difficulty, such as stockbreeding and milk, or for managing risks.
Finally, Commissioner, we should really ask ourselves about biofuels, which are strongly disputed from an environmental point of view. Perhaps the health check is the perfect opportunity to do this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples