Brussels, 10/06/2010 (Agence Europe) - Funding for farmers must be fairer and more focused on local and regional requirements, according to the opinion on the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2013 adopted by the Committee of the Regions on Wednesday 9 June and this stance was repeated in the debate with European Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Cioloº.
CoR President Mercedes Bresso thanked the commissioner for recognising the importance of dialogue with the Committee of the Regions and local authorities. “That the commissioner has come here to address the plenary session for the second time in two months is a clear demonstration of how important it is,” she said.
Georgios Papastergiou (EPP, Greece) noted the importance of people's opinions on the major changes that were taking place. “We have to focus on the quality of the food, on those who work the land, and think about climate change,” he said, opining that the future of the EU was not just about the CAP, but other issues, too, such as the financial perspectives. “The forthcoming reform of the CAP should let us tackle the crisis, with citizens uppermost in our minds. We have to consider people's well-being. There has to be better dialogue with producers and the production chain has to continue to be sound. (…) Payments to farmers have to be reliable and swift,” he commented. The commissioner's attendance for a second of the CoR plenary sessions showed, Papastergiou said, “real cooperation with the CoR”.
René Souchon (PES, France), the rapporteur on the future of the CAP after 2013, stated that his political group firmly believed that Europe needed “a CAP which was of benefit to all policies and, in particular, to employment policy”. The PES is opposed to all forms of renationalisation of the CAP. The group backs the commissioner's proposal to take greater account of the constraints facing mountainous regions and islands, areas which were vital to the future of Europe, Souchon added. The PES would also like to see a strong rural development policy working closely with cohesion policy. “Involvement of the regions is the best way to take account of the specific nature of the various areas. And the budget has to be commensurate with the challenges,” Souchon added.
The CoR opinion on the future of the CAP after 2013 highlights the need for a review of how aid is allocated, with an end to historic references relating to production in 2002-2003. Souchon would like to see aid which, as is the case in Germany, “can be increased in line with good environmental practice, jobs created, land use and giving special consideration to mountain regions, islands and disadvantaged areas”. He stressed, too, the need “to reaffirm the Community preference which is the foundation on which the CAP is built”.
The Committee of the Regions also called on the Commission to ensure improved coordination between the CAP and cohesion policy. Souchon even recommended that “rural development policy, which is about anything but agriculture, be put into territorial cohesion policy”: most of the representatives of the regions, however, did not share his view. The Committee did, however, highlight the importance of clarifying the situation with regard to support for non-agricultural rural activities, for example, tourism- or environment-related, to ensure that rural communities across the EU get the support they need.
Ossi Martikainen (ALDE, Finland) expressed the view that CAP reform should adopt a “broader approach and provide both short- and long-term responses to the challenges”. “The CAP is a wager on food security and sufficiency,” he said, calling for European agriculture to be defended. The CAP should be able to build on proper operation of the markets, he said, pressing the commissioner to work with all economic operators and all climate change specialists.
Jerzy Zaiakala (UEN-EA, Poland) said that the man in the street does not understand the CAP mechanisms. He said he supported the twin pillars of the CAP (the first pillar containing aid and market expenditure, and the second dealing with rural development). He added, however, that “we need the means to meet out ambitions. For the UEN-EA, a rural-urban balance has to be established.
After the speeches of the representatives of the group leaders, a Romanian elected representative asked about genetically modified soya crops. “Romania wants to be able to grow genetically modified soya. 40 million tonnes have already been sold in Europe and grown for feed. There have been no negative effects either on animal or human health,” he said.
Commissioner Cioloº expressed his confidence over the future and the role of the CAP. There was no contradiction, he said, with the territorial and rural approach. “Agriculture can help the sectors overcome the crisis so long as the financial means are on the table,” he said. As for genetically modified soya, it is Health Commissioner John Dalli who is responsible for that issue and he is about to bring forward a proposal, the aim of which is to allow member states to reach decisions at local level following all the relevant analyses and after demonstrating that there will be no adverse effects on health. “We have to think about farmers, and about the other citizens, too, who have a quite different attitude towards GMOs,” Cioloº said. (G.B./L.C./transl.rt)