18 Amendments of Astrid LULLING related to 2011/2051(INI)
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas rural development is an important instrument of the CAP and whereas the new programmes should be geared even more strongly to the priority objectives of rural development and of farmers (employment, the agricultural environment, water, climate change, competitiveness, innovation and education),
Amendment 463 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the need for an adequate basic allowance for small farmers, which Member States can optionally determine in those Member States where these farms help to stabilise rural development; calls for these Member States to decide, in accordance with subsidiarity, what percentage of the direct payments to be incorporated in the new subsidy system should be made available to their small farmers; stresses, however, that this must not hamper the necessary structural change;
Amendment 474 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the need for an adequate basic allowance for small farmers, based on GDP per capita of the population, which Member States can optionally determine in those Member States where these farms help to stabilise rural development; calls for these Member States to decide, in accordance with subsidiarity, what percentage of the direct payments to be incorporated in the new subsidy system should be made available to their small farmers; stresses, however, that this must not hamper the necessary structural change;
Amendment 487 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for a further simplification of the direct payment system, for example simplified transfer rules for payment entitlements in the event of non-activation, merging of minimum payment entitlements, simplification of the rules governing the national reserve and changes to gear them more to young farmers or reduce them, depending on the transition to the regional/national single area payment, abolition of handwritten cattle registries, an effective and unbureaucratic monitoring system based on a risk analysis and with a monitoring frequency proportionate to the level of risk for both pillars and uniform penalties, proportionate to value; considers that administrative systems which can be proven to be operating well should be looked upon favourably in the light of the scale of monitoring prescribed;
Amendment 517 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that decoupling has essentially proved its worth, given the increased effect on income and greater autonomy in decision-making on the part of farmers and the associated simplification of the CAP, and calls for this also, in general, to apply to suckler cow and sheep premiumsCAP; recognises, however, that in certain sectors and regions such as mountain regions, northern regions and extremely remote areas, where there are no alternatives to relatively labour-intensive livestock farming, there may be considerable economic and environmental drawbacks which cannot be reconciled with the aims of the Treaty; acknowledges, therefore, that production- based premiums might be defensible within a narrowly defined framework for a limited period even after 2013;
Amendment 616 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Amendment 656 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers thaterefore that natural resource protection should be directly linked to the granting of direct payments in order to attainfulfil these environmental objectives to the maximum without the need to introduce new, bureaucratic environmental conditions into the first pillar; considers that a flat- rate income payment, as envisaged in a top-up model in the first pillar, must cover costs and income losse; stresses that these measures will have to balance environmental and economic performance, be relevant from an agronomic point of view and provide appropriate incentives for farmers;
Amendment 677 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Considers therefore that any environmental advantages can be attained more effectively and directly by means of second-pillar measures adopted by the Member States, which should ideally build on existing agrienvironmentalecological cross compliance measures or should supplement measures which take into account climatic and geographical differences in the Member States; observes that resource protection programmes should be pursued everywhere by means of a priority catalogue of area-based measures in the second pillar which are subject to basic requirements, particularly in the fields of climate, environment and innovation (Annex I), and aremay be up to 100% EU- financed; regards the greening of direct payments in the first pillar as lying in the fact that any recipient of direct payments in the EU must implement at least two priority area-based resource protection programmes in order to be eligible for the complete farm payment; believes that the administration involved in these measures can be minimised by managing them in accordance with the system of the existing agrienvironmental programmekept at the same level by including them in existing first- pillar ecological cross compliance controls, thus avoiding duplication of monitoring and additional application and administration procedures;
Amendment 697 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Calls on the Commission to present to the European Parliament and the Council, before it elaborates its final legislative proposals, detailed feasibility studies and impact assessments of the model to enhance the environmental performance of the CAP;
Amendment 727 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Regards this model as making a substantial contribution to the simplification of the direct payments system and to the attainment of new compulsory environmental objectives; observes that, under this model, there is no need to step up the current rate of monitoring and the current monitoring capacities, as existing checks can be used, and that checks in the second pillarecological cross compliance checks can be combinused in the basic and regeneration programmefirst pillar; considers also that no new systems of payments or penalties need be introduced;
Amendment 770 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that direct payments are no longer justified without cross -compliance (CC) and therefore that the CC system should apply equally to all recipients of direct payments19;
Amendment 912 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Considers that the use of these instruments which have been described should be triggered only by a political assessment by the EU legislaturecommenced by the EU legislators following a request from the Commission;
Amendment 1032 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Calls on the Commission to investigate whether the current arrangement whereby the wine market organisation ban on plantconsider maintaining planting rights in the wine sector beyond 2015 and to take account of this ing its to expire should be maintained, in view of anticipated market trendsassessment report on the reform of the wine CMO to be submitted in 2012;
Amendment 1079 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Is aware of the importance of the second pillar, in view of its environmental, modernisation and structural improvement achievements, but also for attaining political objectives, which should also benefit farmers; calls therefore for second- pillar measures to be better suited to their objectives, so that the effectiveness of growth, employment, competition and climate measures and measures for the benefit of rural areas can be increased; considers that, in this context, particular attention should be devoted to assisting young farmers;
Amendment 1088 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Emphasises the importance of young farmers and ‘newcomers’ in maintaining a productive and sustainable farming industry in Europe; points out that life expectancy increased by 15 years between 1950 and 2010, and therefore calls on the Commission to rethink its definition of ‘young farmer’, including with a view to attracting newcomers into farming; insists, in this regard, that investment subsidies for young farmers and newcomers must remain at the current level,
Amendment 1112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Advocates therefore introducing targeted measures, to be decided by the Member States in the second pillar, to attain priority objectives of the EU (2020 Strategy); observes that these measures should be applied in addition to the basic programmes for greening of direct payments in the first pillar and that a reduced national cofinancing rate of 25% should apply;
Amendment 1187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Advocates that, in the case of second pillar measures which are of particular importance to Member States, an optional increase of 25% in national financing in the second pillar (top-up) should be possiblethe current cofinancing rates should continue to apply after 2013;
Amendment 1215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54 a. Calls for new, innovative funding instruments to be geared to the farming sector as well, particularly non- bureaucratic micro-loans for young farmers;