Extracts from the report by Lutz Goepel, Member of the EP, on the health check of the CAP, with the participation of Mariann Fischer Boel
End production: 12/03/2008 First transmission: 11/03/2008
During the March 2008 plenary session, the Members of the European Parliament debated the Commission's health check of the Common Agricultural Policy. The committee on agriculture and rural development of the EP recommended broad approval of the proposals, although it has reservations about certain points, including the amount of funds to be switched from the "first pillar" of the CAP (market support) to the "second pillar" (rural development), as well as the capping of direct aid.
Only the original language version is authentic and it prevails in the event of its differing from the translated versions.
||Exterior view of the European Parliament in Strasbourg
||Lutz Goepel, Member of the EP, (in GERMAN) saying that the EU does need to have a new instrument; they have to look at risks management and to take into account new imponderables, and modulation is one of the key concerns;
the proposal will hit harder those who are fulltime farmers and they are worried about the competitiveness, although there have been improvements in competitiveness in the past; they have to try to bring various measures into harmony
||Iztok Jarc, Slovenian Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Food, and President in office of the Council, (in SLOVENIAN) saying that the council will pay special attention to three issues: single payment scheme, market support instruments, as well response to current and new challenges in the field of risk management, climate change and so on; they will do everything they can to strike the best possible balance between adapting their policies to new challenges as well as maintaining a clear framework
||Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the EC in charge of Agriculture and Rural Development, (in ENGLISH) saying that she is quite happy to see that all the three institutions, Parliament, Council and Commission, although they have different shopping lists, they are in the same shop;
the single payment scheme gives a real lift to the competitiveness of EU farmers but they have to make the system more effective, more efficient, and more simple;
she made it clear on many occasions that they need to have for the future a very ambitious rural development policy;
the EP's report is very cruel on her ideas in this area, but they can justify that the rural development policy is financially overstretched; if they have high expectations for the rural development policy, including the need to meet the new challenges (water management, biodiversity), then it does not work to load more on the lorry without more money;
if the report is cruel on modulation, she would describe it as extremely chilly about reduction of payment to large farms
||Neil Parish, Member of the EP, (in ENGLISH) saying that he does actually think that one of the keys to the reform was to reduce bureaucracy to farmers; he thinks they still have some ground to cover there; answering Mariann Fischer Boel: the three institutions are in the same shop, but some of them believe that they could spend the money on different things; this is probably what the arguments are about
||Cutaways (4 shots)