Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-316"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-07-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2004 budget conciliation procedure2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030701.12.2-316"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-07-01-Speech-2-3172
lpv:speaker	lp:Albert Jan Maat2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 vice-chair; AGRI (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I should like to echo the compliments for Mr Mulder’s report and input. In much of it we recognise ourselves as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but at the same time we note that the credits for agriculture and rural development are falling sharply in the 2004 budget. For agriculture alone the share is falling from 40% to 36%, while there is a slight increase for rural development. In its policy plans the European Commission says that agriculture must produce with a greater market focus, but at the same time any incentive to do so in the budget is being taken away. It is not really acceptable that the amount for the promotion of agricultural products for example has been reduced in the preliminary draft budget for 2004. In addition – as Mr Mulder himself has said – the dollar rate is a great risk: a rate of EUR 1.07 is being assumed and that is substantially lower than the current rate. The question is what that could mean for the budget in the long term. There has also, despite a number of outbreaks of major animal diseases, been almost no extra money set aside for possible future outbreaks. At the same time we have started on a different policy for outbreaks of animal diseases, for example the new policy for foot and mouth disease. This means that in the event of future outbreaks the Commission might spend far less money on slaughter. As the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development we should like to see this money being set aside to cushion the market consequences for farmers who at the time are vaccinating without the animals being slaughtered, but who experience the consequences of this, that is lower market prices. This is also the first budget for the Union of 25 Member States and in fact it is very strange that, converted to the structural funds, there is still less money available per head of population for the new Member States than for a number of existing Member States. To summarise, Mr President, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development thinks that the money that is to be spent on rural development, in particular in the new Member States, must be expressly intended for strengthening the small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas. There must be extra money for the promotion of agricultural products that meet all the food safety, animal welfare and environmental requirements and money must be set aside, perhaps through fund formation, for cushioning the effects of a different vaccination policy for animal diseases."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph