Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-06-Speech-1-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050606.17.1-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, in the explanatory statement, the rapporteur states that over half of the population of the 25 Member States of the European Union live in rural areas, which account for 90% of EU territory. Agriculture and forestry are the cornerstones of land use and the management of natural resources, and they serve at the same time as the basis for economic diversification there.
I am in total agreement with the rapporteur. However, I would add that in my country, Ireland, small and medium-sized family farms are the very backbone of Irish society. Down the years they have given us security of basic food supplies, they have contributed to protecting the environment, and they have promoted rural interests. I would add that one in eleven people in the workforce in Ireland is employed in the agricultural sector. I would add that the agri-food sector is a vital player in the Irish economy, accounting for 8% of gross domestic product and furthermore that 7% of Irish exports, and about one fifth of Ireland’s net foreign earnings, come from traded goods from Irish agriculture. Also I want to emphasise that in 2004 Irish agricultural exports exceeded EUR 7 billion. In a word, agriculture in Ireland is a vital national interest. Continued rural development in my country is therefore vital.
On the key issue of funding of the agricultural fund for European development, I have some misgivings, because unless there is unanimous agreement in Council on the financial prospectus for the period 2007 to 2013, this whole project could find itself in limbo land.
In view of recent developments, notably the massive rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by the French farming community, who, it must be said, have been one of the main beneficiaries of the common agricultural policy down the years, perhaps the Commissioner could tell us if, in the event that there is no rapid agreement on future financing, there will be a ‘plan B’ for rural development
Only last week the Agriculture Council adopted conclusions on the European Union forestry action policy. The Council of Ministers acknowledged, inter alia, that the economic, ecological and social relevance of the forest sector in the EU and the contribution that forest and forestry can provide to the Lisbon objectives of sustainable economic growth and competitiveness, as well as to the Göteborg objectives of safeguarding the quantity and quality of the national resource base. Consequently I do not support the Commission’s approach to forestry in its rural development programme. Its proposed premium period of ten years is far too short and its proposed grant rate is too low. In fact the Commission proposals represent a reduction on existing grant rates.
Can we not do better? Because we need to do much better than this. Contradictory approaches are almost impossible to explain to the non-initiated general public, and, in my opinion, completely undermine our collective credibility.
Finally, let me record my opposition to the proposed minimum expenditure levels in the Commission’s proposal. I believe that they are contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. I believe that they do not take account of flexibility to respond to diverse rural needs. In fact I would prefer no prescribed minimums at all."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples