
As stated at the start of the meeting by Commissioner Hansen, the debate was organized primarily to achieve the best compromise, as to the future WPR. This change is to based on a document about the vision for European agriculture, a
this…. is still in development.
Read more
New vision for European agriculture. We know, when
will be presented this important document
Although this, Commissioner Hansen has delivered to members hashed, on what the main assumptions will be based on this revision. I yes:
– Before all we want to point out, that rural are very important for the European community, for produced quantity and quality of food. EU should invest in produced food. Quality of food is not something obvious, so all time we should feel in this area. European agriculture must be competitive and farmers should have fair and worthy incomes. We must take care of environmental issues, but also take care of work for farmers, so that life in the village is performed at a worthy level and that we don’t lose a generation of young farmers. There is a need for more progress in WPR, for farmers not to sit mainly at their bottom and their animals. In the next 6 months there will be a new package of problems. In order to take care of good revenue there will be taken care of supply chains and fight against unfair practices. There is a need to take care of sustainable environment. You must do everything to maintain WPR, as a key tool for support agriculture, take care to increase its budget according to the requirements, take care to that the money from this source really goes to farmers. Must take care of infrastructure on rural lands and of appropriate support for innovation in agriculture – Christophe Hansen mentioned.
What were asked by MEPs PE?
Herbert Dorfmann asked the commissioner about theis, in what direction will be targeted by the replacement package. MEP Dario Nardella appealed among other things. to that, to ensure that the funds from the WPR go only to those farmers, who really are farming and for that, to look with attention to synthetic food and not lose from the eye of traditional agriculture. Raffaele Stancanelli questioned, whether the care for sustainable environment would be related to imposing new regulations and procedures and whether it is worth considering proposals, to member states have more opportunities than today in deciding what to allocate funds from the PR budget in their country. Carlo Fidanza has requested that the WPR be enriched by a pillar of risk management in agriculture and that the broader emphasize the necessity of implementing new technologies, in this NGT. Elsi Katainen reflected the commissioner’s attention, that there is need to prepare for future expansion of the EU and to guarantee fair trade of agricultural products in context of the EU – Mercosur agreement, a also protect better income of European farmers. In a similar tone was spoken by MEP Cristina Guarda, but she also stressed the necessity of stronger support for young farmers.
Luke Ming Flanagan pointed out, that the propagation in the WPR has been talked in the EU for a long time; talked about this and the former commissioner Phil Hogan, and also former commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski. – What will you do instead, in order to finally succeed?” – he asked. Member Ivan David asked, how concretely the commissioner wants to strengthen the position of farmers in the new WPR. Other MPs have asked whether the Commissioner is in favor of Green Land, “because agriculture is declining”, they have asked for a stronger slope on the issue of water availability in agriculture, to increase support for farmers, who want to use of technological innovations, to declare that the future WPR will be based on scientific evidence, the environmental services taken by farmers should be funded from other measures and not from WPR, and why the farmer world should believe the commissioner, that he wants to do good for future agriculture EU because his head – Ursula von der Leyen – wants to conclude an agreement with Mercosur, which will destroy European farmers. Member Anna Zalewska demanded that the exclusion of the said agreement and asked, whether we would certainly talk about the budget for WPR, or only only about .27 portfolios assigned to member states.
What is to Commissioner Hansen?
– If it is about the improved position of farmers in the supply chain, 10 February I will discuss this in detail at a meeting in Strasbourg. What to the package of problems, will be a further string “response” to the postulates of farmers expressed in the protests. Beyond this there will be another review of certain GAECs – mentioned in the response by Commissioner Hansen.
He added, that in his judgment it is most often that the authorities of individual member states are complicated by regulations developed in the EU decided above necessity.
– If there is another WPR then very important is predictability and stability. There cannot be continuous changes, as this happens today. This is how important it is, to already think about the new perspective, that its validation will happen in a secure time date, giving time to member states to prepare for change, to adapt . Without this there will be stability and renewal for generations – stated Christophe Hansen.
He reminded the members, that the renewal of generations is also an issue of well developed national policies.
Referring to questions about the budget WPR, Commissioner Hansen said, that he would very like to get more money for EU agriculture. – But member states don’t always want to pay more into the common cash – he pointed out. He added, that in the conclusions of Strategic Dialogue it was written, that the future budget for WPR should be adapted to the needs of EU agriculture, therefore “counts
on that that this will guarantee a good budget in the next perspective.” – If there is no increased money, then
there will be no possible to impose new challenges on farmers – the commissioner noted.
He admitted, that all the timelobbiesforthatmemberstatesapplyspecificincentivestofarmers,thattheywanttobenefitfrominnovation.Whenit comestothedefinitionofactivefarmertheCommissionerHansenreminded,thatthememberstatesare . themselves;itdetermine it,butalwaysthecommonpoint(mainassumption)shouldbetherule:anactivefarmeristhosewholivefromagriculture.RespondingtoquestionsaboutextendingtheEUandensuringtheincomeoffarmersfromthecurrentCommunitycompositionhe said,that”onewillhavetotryondegressiveness.”