Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-10-Speech-1-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030210.9.1-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I think one of the conclusions we can draw from the debate this evening is that this House always has much more to say about agriculture than about access to medicine, Davos or Porto Alegre. I am not sure this is news but it is nevertheless the case.
Before I finish, I would like to respond to Mr Mulder. It is true Mr Mulder, that the rules of the so-called ‘Everything but arms’ initiative include very strict controls on the origin of products that mean that only products from the least advanced countries benefit from the ‘zero duty, zero quota’ measure agreed for their benefit. These rules are very restrictive and some of the countries believe they are excessively so. It is therefore right the rules should be so rigorous.
I would say two lessons have been learnt from this debate. The first is that Mr Martinez appears to have certain existential concerns. This in itself is excellent news. The second is that, for once, there are excellent reasons for such concerns. On this occasion, I do actually share the view that agriculture concerns not just goods but our very being. I am sure my colleague Mr Fischler would agree on this too. Mr Martinez is right on this point. Agriculture is about goods that are produced, distributed and end up on our own or other people’s plates. Agriculture is also about a service, however, and there is far less talk about that. The goods component of agriculture can be found on the market and in trade links. Goods are bought and sold. The service component of agriculture encompasses food security, the environment and welfare. This is not discussed. In general it is poorly served by market forces.
Agriculture is therefore made up of two interdependent elements. One can be seen to circulate, and could be deemed to fit the same rules as applied to the production of socks, tyres and shoes The other element cannot be equated to the trade in socks, tyres and shoes in any way whatsoever. This is the service component, and because of it we have a special relationship with what we eat and what we produce. The coexistence of the goods and the service components of agriculture is at the root of the difficulties we are up against. This is how we in Europe perceive agriculture and this is why Europe has adopted a balanced position on a number of outcomes. We are not, however, prepared to sacrifice what we believe to be the collective cost of agriculture.
We will pursue this concept of the two aspects of agriculture in our discussions. I have already made it clear to those of you who are interested in or indeed passionate about this issue that there is everything to gain from discussing this whole matter again, before the Cancun meeting. We should, if possible, debate the negotiation program as a whole, and not bit by bit disjointedly as we have this evening. Mr Franz Fischler and I are certainly willing to do so.
We should ask ourselves what is really at stake in this whole affair of multinational commercial agricultural negotiations. The issue is whether the European Union can and should subscribe to controls, ceilings and rules. In the future these would limit the support and protection we currently afford to our farmers and would like to continue to afford them. Further, I would like to remind you of some of the principles on which my position and Mr Franz Fischler’s position are based. I would then like to dwell on two or three points in a little more detail.
Firstly, at Doha we made a number of commitments on negotiations. Our undertakings went considerably further than those we gave on the previous occasion. I am referring to Marrakech in 1995. We agreed to increase market access by reducing our support within the Union and reducing export subsidies. These matters form part of our negotiation mandate. We shall pursue this, as previously agreed.
Our second principle concerns our work on these issues. In allocating concessions, we should give priority to developing countries and ensure that concessions and consequently control measures are applied in an equitable manner. There is no question of the European Union as part of the developed world accepting control measures other developed countries would reject.
I would now like to outline my third and last general principle. This debate is not the same as our internal debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy. The debate over our position in relation to the World Trade Organisation is quite separate from the internal debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy. We are not debating the reform of the common agricultural policy in Geneva, Tokyo, Washington, Sydney or Cancun. It will be debated internally, along our own lines. It is true that we are debating our position in relation to the World Trade Organisation in Brussels and Strasbourg, but in the spirit I described.
The Commission has indeed put forward a proposal. If adopted, it will usher in further reforms in the management of the common agricultural policy. It remains to be seen if and when these decisions are taken. It has yet to be established also which of these decisions will be used as negotiating tools and when. This is not the case at the moment however. I must make it clear to Mrs Doyle that the 36%, 45%, 55%, that Mr Franz Fischler and I have now put forward with the agreement of the Council, follow from reforms already adopted. They do not compromise the eventual outcome of other reforms in any way.
Turning to whether what we have put forward is too ambitious or is not sufficient. You have already responded to this question I think. Some of you think our proposals lack ambition and others think they go too far. Mrs McNally made it clear that, in her opinion, we could have gone further. I would like to say that I do not believe we could have gone any further, at least not at this stage. If here and now all the contracting parties within the WTO made the type of commitment we have put on the table, we would all have taken a great step forward towards establishing better control measures to support agriculture throughout the world.
Now for the question of whether we are going too far. I believe this is what Mr Hyland is concerned about. I do not believe that we are. I do think however that we have already gone too far in reforming the common agricultural policy in recent years. This was perhaps the essence of what Mr Hyland was saying. As you can well imagine, this is not the view of the Commission.
I would now like to address the points made by Mr van Dam, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and Mrs Erika Mann. They rightly pointed to the issue of food security. They based their arguments on the fact that in agriculture, only 10% of production is traded on the international market. This contrasts with the situation in other sectors. They are right in what they say and this is why we have introduced a new measure that has been widely commented upon. We are building in the concept of food security, a safeguard clause, a separate section devoted to food security. As I said in my introductory intervention, we have taken inspiration from various quarters, in particular non-governmental organisations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples