Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the mid-term review has nevertheless been quite an adventure and it is no bad thing that we, the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, have arrived at a possible compromise, which might, it seems to me, satisfy farmers. We wanted the policy directions to be clear to all and that is why we have given the Cunha report a clear introduction. For us , the positive aspect of this compromise is that it strengthens rural development. The thorough grooming proposed today allows European farmers to keep the positive aspects of multifunctionality by strengthening rural development, the system of modulation allowing them to pass from the first to the second pillar. I am thinking in particular of Amendment No 44 to Article 12. This proposed modulation uses a territorial criterion for the application of different percentage points, taking account of less-favoured areas. Indeed, as the rapporteur says in his justification, the objective must be to consolidate the structure of producer organisations. Moreover, this amendment obliges States to commit themselves to rural development, since they will only get 100% of the EAGGF Guarantee amounts if they commit themselves to obligatory national co-financing. I am sure that will encourage States to correctly finance all the social, food quality and environmental aspects of rural development. The territorial farming contracts model introduced by France was an excellent precursor from this point of view. It should be noted, since it is essential for the future, that Member States may use this modulation to fund their national contribution for the so very necessary establishment of young farmers. Similarly, States may – and in our opinion must – chose to finance the compensatory payments to less-favoured areas and to areas subject to environmental constraints or agro-environmental measures – all this without affecting the overall amount allocated by the State to the second pillar. This strengthening of rural development is therefore a step in the right direction for two very good reasons: the first is to consolidate good farming practices, more extensive practices, protecting the health of the consumer, respecting the environment and biodiversity and producing a good social added value; the second is to protect the rural world from the vicissitudes of the aggressive commercial liberalism advocated by the WTO. Thus, the multifunctional specifics of European agriculture or the exploitation of products specific to a particular region will still be able to be paid for under the second pillar, which affords the best protection for small producers in less-favoured areas. In addition, there is the difference between the degression of direct payments to fragile areas (6%) and other areas (8%). If it is to remain meaningful, this strengthening of the second pillar must preserve the milk quotas which have proved their effectiveness in safeguarding mountain stock farming. We must also protect and consolidate natural pasture land, but more than that we must continue to support the fodder and, more generally, the protein crops necessary for healthy, high-quality stock farming – the alfalfa mentioned by Mr Souchet – and maintain the necessary schemes. It ought to be possible to grow protein crops on all frozen land since Europe is in deficit in them and growing vegetable protein is also beneficial for the quality of the soil and the environment and for the quality of animal feed. On the sensitive issue of decoupling, we had to decide between those who supported total decoupling and those who wanted none. We feel that the compromise of going a step at a time opens up a perspective that everyone can accept.

Political group: Verts-ALE