Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    The European Model of Agriculture - The Future of Modern Farming

    Uploaded by

    fauzifa
    Fischler describes 1999 as a "year of decisions" for reforming the EU's agricultural policy. He says without reform, cereal and beef mountains would reemerge, costs would rise drastically, or production would face restrictions. Fischler calls for supporting a sensible compromise in negotiations to improve competitiveness and prevent the EU from falling behind in agriculture. He emphasizes making EU agricultural products more competitive and strengthening rural development policies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The European Model of Agriculture - The Future of Modern Farming

    Uploaded by

    fauzifa
    34 views6 pages
    Fischler describes 1999 as a "year of decisions" for reforming the EU's agricultural policy. He says without reform, cereal and beef mountains would reemerge, costs would rise drastically, or production would face restrictions. Fischler calls for supporting a sensible compromise in negotiations to improve competitiveness and prevent the EU from falling behind in agriculture. He emphasizes making EU agricultural products more competitive and strengthening rural development policies.

    Original Title

    _Fischler responsible_and_rural_development_____The_European_model_of_agriculture_-_the_future_of_modern_farming____________________Opening_Speech_for_International_Green_Week_1999_Berlin__21_January_1999

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fischler describes 1999 as a "year of decisions" for reforming the EU's agricultural policy. He says without reform, cereal and beef mountains would reemerge, costs would rise drastically, or production would face restrictions. Fischler calls for supporting a sensible compromise in negotiations to improve competitiveness and prevent the EU from falling behind in agriculture. He emphasizes making EU agricultural products more competitive and strengthening rural development policies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    34 views6 pages

    The European Model of Agriculture - The Future of Modern Farming

    Uploaded by

    fauzifa
    Fischler describes 1999 as a "year of decisions" for reforming the EU's agricultural policy. He says without reform, cereal and beef mountains would reemerge, costs would rise drastically, or production would face restrictions. Fischler calls for supporting a sensible compromise in negotiations to improve competitiveness and prevent the EU from falling behind in agriculture. He emphasizes making EU agricultural products more competitive and strengthening rural development policies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    SPEECH/99/9

    Franz Fischler

    Member of the European Commission responsible for agriculture


    and rural development

    The European model of agriculture -


    the future of modern farming

    Opening Speech for International Green Week 1999

    Berlin, 21 January 1999


    Summary - “1999 a year of decisions for farmers”, says Fischler
    Franz Fischler, the EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development,
    opened International Green Week in Berlin by describing 1999 as a “year of
    decisions”, saying that without reform we would soon be confronted with new
    cereals and beef mountains, absurdly high costs or drastic production restrictions.
    A retreat by the agricultural sector from international markets would mean stricter
    conditions to limit production. Farmers’ actions would depend on the nanny state
    rather than on individual efficiency. A serious step towards reform was needed
    therefore, to improve competitiveness and prevent the EU from relegation to a
    lower league in agriculture, Fischler said. He called on Germany’s farmers to
    support a sensible compromise in negotiations.
    Fischler made it clear that time was getting short, and not just in view of the coming
    WTO round and EU enlargement. The aim of Agenda 2000 was to make Europe’s
    agricultural products more competitive, strengthen environment policy and rural
    development and ease the pressure on consumers. Independent studies estimated
    the savings for consumers at between 7 and 13 billion euros by the year 2005,
    which translated into a reduction of between 0.3 and 0.45% in the consumer price
    index.
    Fischler addressed himself directly to German farmers, admitting that he was
    aware of the scepticism many farm representatives felt towards the Agenda 2000
    reform package. However, a lot of people tended to forget that German farmers
    were particularly successful market players, he said, with Germany the biggest
    producer of milk, pigmeat and rape in the Union, and its second-biggest producer
    of cereals, beef and eggs. German farm exports hit a record high in 1998,
    increasing more than 7% over the previous year. And per-capita incomes in
    Germany rose for the fifth year running in 1998. In view of this, the EU
    Commissioner expressed surprise that so many farmers and their representatives
    were afraid of gearing themselves more closely to market needs.
    Fischler emphasised that competitive agriculture also needed a competitive
    environment. Rural development policy was therefore to be built into a second pillar
    of the common agricultural policy in all regions of the Union. Agri-environmental
    measures and compensatory payments recognised important functions of
    agriculture. The Member States were to be given more room for manoeuvre to
    allow them to focus on specific national or regional needs. What had been missing
    until now was a resolute step by agricultural policy to recognise this
    multifunctionality in economic terms and thus help it generate income, he argued.
    The Agriculture Commissioner warned against watering down the essential
    agricultural reforms to meet the warranted calls for sharing the financial burden
    more fairly across the Union: half-hearted reforms would achieve nothing, either on
    the market or in terms of surplus costs. People should not believe that the status
    quo could be maintained at no extra cost. Nor could reform be financed without an
    increase in the agricultural budget, even if one sector or another were to be taken
    out of the reform process, which would be a serious mistake Fischler concluded.

    2
    Full text
    Ladies and gentlemen,
    The European agricultural sector has weathered a stormy year. The Union’s
    farmers saw record harvests of cereals, oilseeds and protein plants. But the
    economic crises in Asia, South America and Russia caused upheavals on
    agricultural markets, limiting export possibilities for a short period. This led to a rise
    in intervention stocks in the cereals sector and produced a sharp drop in prices on
    the pigmeat market. The outlook for beef exports was also poor, while consumption
    in the EU slowly picked up again.
    As a result of these dramatic developments, producer prices fell in most Member
    States, but incomes have not been as badly hit as feared just a few months ago.
    Despite all the problems, German farmers even saw per-capita income rise once
    more last year.
    The Union’s measures to stabilise markets also made a positive contribution. On
    the pigmeat market we reacted by providing subsidies for storage and adapting the
    export refunds.
    Last Wednesday we signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Food Aid with
    Russia. which will, I hope, help ease the situation.
    In political terms, in 1998 agricultural policy was dominated by debates about
    reform. In March we presented our draft Regulations to implement the Agenda
    2000 reform package. In June we reached agreement on reform of the tobacco
    market and transitional arrangements for olive oil. And in December we completed
    the groundwork for a smooth transition from green rates to the euro.

    A year of decisions
    After a year of preparations, 1999 must be a year of decisions. The whole Agenda
    2000 reform package must be in place by the end of March.
    It is no coincidence that the Heads of State and Government in the Union have
    fixed such a tight timetable. The new European Parliament will be elected in June
    and it will then take some time to form the new parliamentary groups and
    committees. The new structural programmes will also start next year, and in the
    agricultural sector the next round of WTO negotiations is to commence towards the
    end of the year.
    But the people of Europe are above all increasingly asking themselves what they
    want from agriculture today. Debate centres on the environmental impact of
    agricultural production and the question of social criteria in agricultural policy and
    the desire for a better quality of life. At stake here is the much-feted European
    model of agriculture. The features making this a specifically “European” model of
    agriculture are the focus on high safety standards and food quality, and on a
    sustainable development of rural areas across the whole Community.
    Without reform we will soon be confronted with new cereals and beef mountains,
    for our products are not competitive enough at current price levels to succeed on
    the internal market and make full use of export opportunities.

    3
    Pursuing the present agricultural policy would increase intervention stocks of
    cereals to 51 million tonnes and beef to 1.5 million tonnes by 2005, which is
    unacceptable as it would generate absurdly high costs or lead to drastic production
    restrictions.
    If we are to prevent such a development and keep all the options open for our
    farmers and the food industry, we have to be prepared to take serious steps
    towards reform. By this I mean improving competitiveness dramatically by cutting
    price support while providing appropriate compensation for losses in income. This
    would also benefit consumers, even taking into account the essential additional
    costs involved.
    And this will in turn have a positive impact on economic growth and employment.
    Independent experts have put the net savings for consumers at between 7 and 13
    billion euros by the year 2005. This translates into a reduction of between 0.3 and
    0.45% in the consumer price index.

    Prospects for German farmers


    Many farmers, especially here in Germany, are rather sceptical about the Agenda
    2000 package. I would like therefore to address myself directly to German farmers:
    to all farmers gathered here today and to those working on their farms at home.
    Many of you are concerned about the future and are troubled about what the
    Brussels Commission expects of you over the next few years. And no wonder, for
    debate was for a long time dominated by grisly pictures of the disadvantages to be
    expected from the Agenda 2000 package.
    A lot of people tend to forget that German farmers are particularly successful
    market players. Germany is the Union’s biggest producer of milk, pigmeat and
    rape, and the second-biggest producer of corn, beef and eggs. Despite the turmoil
    on agricultural markets, German farm exports hit a record high in 1998, increasing
    more than 7% over the previous year. And per-capita incomes in Germany rose for
    the fifth year running in 1998.
    And so I am surprised that so many farmers and their representatives here in
    Germany are still afraid of gearing themselves more closely to market needs. Of
    course, we will still have to cope with some structural problems on agricultural
    holdings and in processing companies, but this is precisely where our policy for
    rural areas is to be targeted.
    Moreover, while multi-functionality might be a new term to many, the practice is
    nothing new to farming families here in Germany but has long been an everyday
    reality. Production of food and renewable raw materials goes hand in hand with
    essential services for the environment and the rural economy. What has been
    missing until now is a resolute step by agricultural policy to recognise this
    multifunctionality in economic terms and thus help it generate income.
    At its winter conference here in Berlin, the Deutsche Landwirtschaftgesellschaft,
    representing German farmers, took a close look at possible future scenarios in
    agriculture. It was made very clear that a retreat by the agricultural sector from
    world markets would only mean stricter conditions to limit production.
    Entrepreneurial freedom would depend less on individual efficiency than on a
    nanny state. Is that the future your agricultural representatives are working for?

    4
    Withdrawing into our European shell would be akin to shooting ourselves in the
    foot. The scenario of greater market orientation and focusing on what is required
    by society offers much better prospects in my opinion. I do not mean that we
    should industrialise agriculture, but am talking about improving the competitiveness
    of our products, sharpening the environmental focus, improved quality and safety,
    working towards sustainable rural development and ensuring a reasonable living
    standard.
    However, this also means achieving acceptance of the European model of
    agriculture in the international arena. At this point I would like to address myself
    directly to you, Mr Glickman. We are prepared to develop our European model of
    agriculture: are you prepared to accept this forward-looking model?
    I would like now to come back to farmers here in Germany. How can you benefit
    from the Commission’s proposals?
    Germany will become an even more attractive agricultural location. The agricultural
    sector will become more competitive and farmers and the processing industry will
    be able to sell more on the internal and international markets, especially branded
    goods, which will achieve high value-added.
    There will increasingly less state intervention in production decisions, with greater
    scope for entrepreneurial initiative. Farmers will be able to decide on the basis of
    market forecasts whether to grow cereals, oilseeds or other arable crops or to set
    aside land. In the milk sector active producers are to be promoted rather than
    armchair milkers. In the case of wine-growers, those producing quality wine are to
    be promoted rather than producers of mere alcohol. In the beef sector we are
    against concentrating solely on fattening on pasture, and the classic German
    practice of fattening bullocks should also be given a chance.
    Competitive agriculture needs a competitive environment. The Community
    therefore plans to build rural development policy into a second pillar of the CAP.
    Aid is to be available for all rural development schemes and not restricted to just a
    few problem areas.
    In the less-favoured areas we plan to promote stewardship of the countryside by
    increasing funding, which may in future also be granted to particularly
    environmentally sensitive areas. We have also proposed increasing the budget for
    agri-environmental measures, which are to be firmly anchored in all rural
    development programmes.
    Member States are to be given more room for manoeuvre in market management
    and rural development so that they can focus on specific regional or national needs
    with targeted measures.

    Political decisions are on the agenda


    As we start the year the German Presidency faces the task of bringing the Agenda
    2000 negotiations to a political conclusion. This is anything but easy, particularly if
    you consider the divergent original positions in the individual Member States.

    5
    Take milk quotas, for example. One group of Member States is in favour of cutting
    intervention prices by up to 30% instead of 15% and abolishing milk quotas by
    2006 at the latest. Another group has called for the existing quotas to be retained.
    If no agreement can be reached, the quota scheme will expire on 31 March 2000.
    Yet is does not appear possible to reach an agreement without quota increases.
    Only one thing is certain: the more production we allow, the greater the pressure
    on prices on the internal market. As things stand, I believe we will only find a
    solution in a package together with other reforms.
    The Agenda 2000 package as a whole goes far beyond the agricultural sector,
    covering the funding of Community policies over the next seven years, the strategy
    for enlargement of the Union and the new generation of structural programmes.
    The reform of Community policy must share the burden fairly among Member
    States in order to maintain solidarity in the Union. This also means that we cannot
    leave our Central European neighbours waiting at the door just because we cannot
    agree on reforms which have become essential in any case.
    It would be just as fatal if these completely warranted calls for sharing the burden
    fairly across the Union were to delay the reform of the CAP or limit it to purely
    cosmetic operations. Half-hearted reforms will achieve nothing, either on the
    market or in terms of surplus costs. Nor should you believe that we can maintain
    the status quo at no extra cost. And nor can we finance reform without an increase
    in the agricultural budget, even if one sector or another is taken out of the reform
    process - which I believe would be a serious mistake.
    Ladies and gentlemen,
    The point has come for the Agriculture Council to act so that important decisions
    can be taken in good time. However, we also need farmers and farming
    representatives to act, to give the agriculture ministers the support they need to
    take the far-sighted decisions that are required. Our proposals will enable us to
    pool our forces and to work together with consumers and society in Europe to carry
    through a forward-looking reform of the CAP.
    I do not expect German farmers to be suddenly infected by enthusiasm. But I do
    expect reason to prevail, in the shape of German agriculture minister Karl-Heinz
    Funke together with his colleagues and the Commission working out a sensible
    compromise which has your backing.
    Thank you.

    You might also like