Mr President, we genuinely greatly appreciate the work of the Commissioner and the Commission in general on enlargement and rural development policy. It is a courageous undertaking, and the transfer of some of the resources supporting the market precisely to the poorer rural areas is timely and positive. As always, when one person benefits, many others suffer. The previous speakers have already mentioned the reasons for regretting decoupling and other technical aspects, which I will not repeat. I would, instead, like to focus on the positive side of these innovations, this courageous step, to address a point which is, I am sad to say, too often disregarded. In actual fact, this openness bodes extremely well for all those who are advocates of development in the outermost regions, particularly mountain regions. This section on rural development is extremely important but its importance is equally greatly overlooked. The word ‘mountain’ does not appear in the Commissioner’s mid-term review, even though, just a couple of weeks ago, he dedicated a two-day seminar to mountain issues. As always, however, the debate was opened and closed without any progress being made. The word ‘mountain’ does not appear in the document we are discussing either, but mountain issues can quite easily be identified in Mr Daul’s document. I congratulate Mr Daul heartily. For example, paragraph 1 of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development’s motion for resolution calls for the development of multifunctional farming. Mountain farming is a diverse and multifunctional typical form of farming. Paragraph 3, which calls for a more precise definition of the objectives of protection of the environment, public health and animal welfare, describes what have always been the parameters of mountain farming, what I would call endemic mountain farming. Above all, however, mountains are implicit in the section on rural development. Paragraph 17 calls for a range of measures differing according to the different types of farming regions. Again, paragraph 18 states that it is essential to preserve traditional family farms and support young farmers in less-favoured areas and the outermost regions. I regret to say that the remote location of mountain areas means that they are always outermost regions and certainly less favoured than the plains. Lastly, paragraph 20 calls upon the Commission to give priority in the distribution pattern to the less-favoured regions, to the regions which are most vulnerable and in need – I would add – not just of development plans but of an investment of trust. This is the situation of the European mountain regions, which make up 30% of Europe’s territory and are home to 5% of its population. The mountains do not want to be a problem. They want their great potential to be a major resource for the whole Union. We must decide to call them by their name. We must have no hesitation in acknowledging their specific situation and, what is more, mention them by name in the new Treaty to give them an anchor and provide a legal basis on which to draw up an ad hoc directive. We must start work on a document which provides specifically and exclusively for the needs of the mountain regions. This could be the start of a radical reform which would improve the situation of the mountain regions and all the less-favoured regions, giving them the same opportunities for life and growth as the rest of the Community. I would like to thank our chairman, Mr Daul, once again, not least for giving me the cue to make these observations on a very important matter.

Political group: PPE-DE