Mr President, Commissioner, there are few things that will be as important in the world of the future as sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture. From the start, I have supported Mr Fischler’s far-sighted ideas about coming up with proposals as to how we are to reform European agricultural policy. Unfortunately, these ideas have deteriorated and are still in the process of deteriorating. I believe it was a deterioration when President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder agreed upon a ceiling which was to have been applied, rather, as a floor for the costs of agricultural policy. I have to acknowledge, unfortunately, that, in my view, what we have arrived at here in Parliament does not improve the proposal but, instead, exacerbates it. I am concerned that, when they meet, the ministers too will make it still worse. Not even European farmers seem to understand what is in their own best interests. Opposition to the Commission’s proposal for agricultural reform among farmers, among ourselves in the European Parliament and among agricultural ministers must have to do with their not wishing to see the broader context. I do not intend to talk about the details of any report, but I intend to concentrate precisely on the bigger picture in my speech. We must remember that most of the world’s food is produced at costs that are not covered by today’s low prices on the world market. Most farmers in industrialised countries therefore require aid if they are to be able to produce food, and farmers in the developing countries need to be paid more. Aid for agricultural production in the industrialised countries increases production, and the surpluses are exported with the help of subsidies. That reduces prices on the world market. We must change the systems in order to create a healthy world market. It should be possible for prices on the world market to rise to a level that enables most farmers to produce food, and it is therefore quite obvious that all forms of aid that distort trade must be done away with. The EU cannot change this situation by itself but, together with the United States, we should be able to do a lot in this area. The negotiations within the WTO and the Commission’s proposal for agricultural reform are steps in the right direction in this connection. We must remember, however, that the world is not quite as simple as that. Even with fair prices on the world market, large areas of small-scale European agriculture would still not be competitive. We have tough requirements in terms of the environment and animal welfare. We insist upon food safety and quality. We demand worker protection. We wish to conserve the cultivated landscape and natural and cultural environments, and we want to improve social conditions in the countryside. The market could in theory pay for account to be taken of values such as quality. Our requirements could be financed through direct aid from society and, more specifically, from the EU when it came, especially, to matters of collective benefit. The route from high subsidies and collapsed prices on the world market to healthy trade and pricing must, however, be achieved via a change to the way in which aid is at present provided, that is to say through a decoupling of aid from production. That is where my report on rural development comes in. Unfortunately, there was too little money when the Commission drafted its proposal. Thanks to helpful and kind-hearted fellow MEPs in Parliament, I have obtained a little money from Mr Cunha and a certain amount of money from Mrs Jeggle and have thus been able to add a little more for rural development. That is because the proposed decoupling puts less favoured areas at most risk, and we must deal with the risks as quickly as possible. I believe that Parliament has come up with an improvement where that matter is concerned. Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if, in the EU, we do not in good time modernise our arsenal of aid to agriculture – that is to say, by moving the aid from the Blue to the Green Box, or however one wants to put it – the WTO negotiations may, if they are to lead to any result that is encouraging in a global perspective, forcibly divest us of the weapons we use to protect European agriculture and the European agricultural model. There would then be nothing for us to have recourse to. Prevention is better than cure. That is something we Europeans should also appreciate. When they meet for negotiations next week, the agricultural ministers will hopefully realise that a poor decision, or no decision at all, may in actual fact lead to a disaster for farmers, the countryside and also consumers who want to see good food in Europe.

Political group: ELDR