Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I believe that this report, with the short debate on it that is shortly to follow, fits in well with what we have been discussing: not only avian influenza, but also Mr Garot’s report, which has shed light on the difficulties faced by European agriculture, whilst also stressing its significance by reason of the multifunctional role given to it and in view of the status of agriculture as a dominant factor in the overall ecological and social balance of agricultural landscapes. Consideration must be given to why it is that agriculture is in such a difficult position in this respect, even though the European Union is one of the areas importing the most agricultural produce and food. Why – for this is the theme of the report – does the Sixth Research Framework Programme allocate only 5% of its funds to agriculture? This does not do justice to the importance of agriculture, and it must also be noted that the research into agriculture announced in this Framework Programme is to a large extent aimed at rationalising production rather than at the sustainability issue.

Take the problem of genetically modified organisms, for example: although it must be admitted that a vast amount is spent on genetic engineering, little is being done as regards coexistence and the sustainable and long-term cultivation of crops that have been genetically modified alongside those that have not.

Let me return, though, to this morning’s consideration of avian influenza. We cannot fail to notice that, in the countries where it occurs, certain breeds adapted to industrial production are in conflict with the traditional and indigenous breeds. The former have developed an immune system that can deal with certain diseases, but now have to contend with genetic defects capable of affecting the immune system of the indigenous breeds. As a result, this is where the pandemics then strike, and the indigenous breeds are culled – that is, destroyed – so that these countries’ genetic resources, vital above all for their subsistence farming and food sources, suffer as well. The question must be asked – and this would be quite a research topic – why these industries go to these countries in the first place. Do they do it in order to sort out the problem with hunger that exists there, or do they do it because of better production conditions and opportunities to make a better return on the capital they invest? Look into the situation and you will discover that neither these industries nor their capital generally belong to these countries; instead, the capital originates here, here in the industrial nations, which want to do business there, and then we in this House lament – as does Mr Garot in his report – that our agriculture is producing less. It is no longer competitive, because these countries work to different social, environmental and hygienic standards. Comparative studies of that would be extraordinarily important.

I have mentioned subsistence farming, which is an important source of food not only in these countries, but also in the EU’s new Member States in Central and Eastern Europe. This is something else into which research should be done. In this report, we have attached the utmost importance to the question of the role played by women in the work done. Most women working in industrialised farming work in less-valued jobs, whereas, in other fields of agricultural activity, they tend to play leading roles on which the maintenance of these landscapes depends.

The point we are generally trying to make is that we expect more attention to be given to agriculture when preparing the next – that is, the Seventh – Research Framework Programme, and that the expected results of agricultural reforms in the European Union and of changes elsewhere in the world should be accompanied by research that will provide us with insights as to what the direction of our policies should be in the coming years and decades.