Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-10-Speech-1-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030210.9.1-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to make three points concerning these agriculture negotiations under the auspices on the WTO. I must make it clear at the outset that I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of the discussions.
Firstly, these negotiations are taking place against a background of widely differing approaches to agriculture in the United States and the European Union. Aware of the negative consequences of the fair act for their agriculture, the United States have replaced it with an ambitious farm bill bringing in a 70% increase in financial support to the sector. In contrast, the European Union has set ceilings for expenditure on agriculture. Further, the Union is implementing a policy on decoupling, just as the United States have abandoned theirs. The Union is also reluctant to apply Community preferences, as was the case in the incident concerning cereals from the Black Sea. Clearly, these contrasts reflect differing degrees of political will. The United States wishes its agriculture to remain strong. For the United States, retaining control of what they term the food weapon is a strategic priority, so they are deploying all the means at their disposal to that end. As for Europe, it is divided on this issue, as it is on so many others. Europe is even divided on the very appropriateness of a public agricultural policy. It is divided too on the resources such a policy should have available. In the proposal on agriculture made by the United States in the context of Doha, significant public support for its agriculture is retained. It would therefore be both paradoxical and unacceptable for European agriculture to be stranded high and dry at the end of the process.
Secondly, with regard to the Cairns group, it is vital to prevent those countries that are not developing countries and have maintained unrelenting pressure since the start of the Uruguay Round from bringing about the demise of any kind of European agricultural policy by whatever means they have available. We must stand firm. Developing countries cannot become shields concealing this aim. After all, the European Union is the largest importer of agricultural products from developing countries in the world. The Union accounts for two-thirds of Africa’s agricultural exports. In addition, the Union is the only party to have created a system of non-reciprocal preferences in the framework of the Lomé Convention and subsequently of the Cotonou Convention.
My third and last point is that it is vital for any agreement to be subject to proper provision for concerns we deem to be crucial to society, though they are not strictly trading issues. I mean proper provision, not mere lip service. I have in mind the requirement for traceability, the rejection of social dumping, concern for the environment and authorised protection of designations of origin. Mr President, these issues have to be central to negotiations. They cannot be sidelined.
I trust you will take all this on board, Commissioner."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples