22 Amendments of Brian SIMPSON related to 2011/2051(INI)
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas food security remains a central challenge for agriculture not only in the EU but globally, in particular in developing countries, as the world population is predicted to grow from 7 to 9 billion by 2050 and demand for food is projected to double by the same year according to the FAO; whereas this extra food will need to be produced against a background of pressure on natural resources, meaning that farmers will need to produce more, using less land and using less fertilisers and pesticides,
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the European Parliament has often expressed its opposition to a renationalisation of the CAP and an increase in cofinancing, which could detract from fair competition on the EU internal market, and therefore advocanotes that direct payments bare wholly financed by the EU budget,
Amendment 467 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the needConsiders the option for an adequate basic allowance for small farmers, whichfor Member States can optionally determine in those Member Statesto determine where these farms help to stabilise rural development; calls for these Member States to decide, in accordance with subsidiarity, whether to offer such a scheme and, if so, what percentage of the direct payments to be incorporated in the new subsidy system shcould be made available to their small farmers; stresses, however, that this must not hamper the necessary structural change;
Amendment 532 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls – without casting any doubt on the results of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP – for appropriations under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 primarily to be allocated for measures to promote territorial coherence and boost key sectors (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows), for area-based environmental measures (e.g. organic farming) which to date have not been included in the second pillar; considers that the budget for Article 68 could – subject to contrary results of an impact assessment – cover up to 10% of direct payments;used to help preserve sensitive production in specific locations (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows); considers that the budget for Article 68 could – subject to contrary results of an impact assessment – cover up to 10% of direct payments; and that any coupled support payments be limited to a maximum of 3.5% of the national or regional envelope for direct payments. Furthermore, calls for any measures submitted by Member States to be subject to approval by the Commission under delegated acts to ensure that they do not distort production and markets within the single market.
Amendment 604 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that direct payments should be made only to active farmers; realises that, under the system of decoupled direct payments, each farmer who uses farmland for production or who tends it in order to maintain GAEC should receive direct payments; calls on the Commission therefore to devise a definition of ‘" inactive farmer", to clearly identify which farmers or landowners would not qualify for payments reserved only for "active farmer’s" which the Member States can administer without additional administrative effort, while it should be ensured; reaffirms that traditional farming activities (full-time and various degrees of part-time) are classified as active farming and that contract farming arrangements as well as management of common land are taken into account;
Amendment 638 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that better resource protection is an element in sustainable farming, which should involve separate support for environmental measures going beyond the requirements of Cross Compliance (CC), which already entail many environmental measures, and being geared to multiannual applications as recognized by the resolution of 8 July 2010 on the future of the CAP after 2013, as a result of which greater environmental benefits can be attained;
Amendment 749 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Realises that resources from the first pillar (as for a top-up model) should be used to pay for this environmental component; believes, however, that Member States where direct payments lie below the EU average should be given the option of making the payment by means of cofinancing from the first pillar or instead by means of financing entirely from the second pillar; observes that the Member States must notify the Commission of their decision on the financing by 31 July 2013; notes that individual Member States' modulation resources should be used;
Amendment 754 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Advocates compensation forsupport for the delivery of environmental outcomes in areas with natural disadvantages in the second pillar and rejects a. Furthermore, calls for any complementary payment in the first pillar on account of the additional administrative work involved; submitted by Member States to be subject to approval by the Commission under delegated acts to ensure that they do not distort production and markets within the single market;
Amendment 772 #
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 to all recipients of direct payments19 ;
Amendment 830 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Considers that the general market orientation of the CAP should be maintained and that the general structure of market management instruments should likewise be retabe streamlined;
Amendment 861 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Considers that, in view of the anticipated environmental and climate dachallengers and the risk of epidemics and considerable price fluctuations on agricultural markets, additional risk prevention is of vital importance, particularlymore pro-active risk management could be made available, at individual farm level;
Amendment 882 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Considers that a multi-stage safety net comprising private storage, public intervention, market disruption instruments and an emergency clause would confer the greatest possible benefit; calls for private storage and public intervention to be permitted for specific sectors where market disruptions are of limited duration; calls furthermore for a market disruption instrument and an emergency clause to be established for all sectors in common, making it possible for the Commission, under certain circumstances, in the event ofthe current arrangements for market intervention are unnecessarily expensive and could be streamlined so as to become a genuine safety net for use only in rare, unpredictable criseis to take action over a limited period which goes beyond the existing instrusituations and not a routine tool of market managements;
Amendment 938 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Considers that private-sector insurance schemes, such as multi-hazard insurance, mustcould be developed in view of increasing risks; is aware of the fact that, without public contributions to the financing (from the EU and Member States), this would be difficult; supports the adoption of an EU-wide and WTO-compliant environment to ensure that no distortions of competition occur among Member States; rejects, however, the introduction of EU-wide insurance systems;
Amendment 971 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Calls on the Commission to examine the extent to which producer groups or sectoral associations can be extended to allother production sectors and incorporated into the risk prevention schemes; calls on the Commission to examine the extent to which specific contractual arrangements should be laid out in the single CMO regulation to strengthen the position of farmers and promote fair competition; calls on the Commission to examine what steps are needed across the EU to regulate against the abuse of power by dominant market players so that farmers can achieve a fairer share of value added from the supply chain;
Amendment 996 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Acknowledges that in the WTO negotiations the EU has offered to abolish export refunds, albeit with the proviso that other trading partners (particularly the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) also bring their export support into line with WTO rules; calls for the EU likewise to formulate a system for export credits which complies with WTO ruleto abolish its export refunds regardless of the decision of the other trading partners;
Amendment 1028 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Calls on the Commission to investigate whether the current arrangement whereby the winefor greater market organisientation ban on planting is to expire should be maintained, in view of anticipated market trendsd removal of barriers to competitiveness in the EU wine sector;
Amendment 1071 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Is aware of the critical 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 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 1087 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48 a. Highlights the importance of rural development to complement the good practices supported under the first pillar with multi-annual programmed measures; underlines the need to support the orientation of European farming towards the production of quality food, sustainable management of natural resources and balanced territorial development; stresses that rural development needs to address the pressing global and EU challenges such as biodiversity loss, climate change, depletion of water resources and soil degradation;
Amendment 1142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. ABelieves that the targeted nature of support to farmers operating in less favoured areas (LFA) is of the upmost importance for the continuation of agricultural activities in these areas; advocates in this connection that the compensatory allowance for disadvantaged areasLFA be retained in the second pillar; considers that it should be ascertained what cofinancing rate appears to be appropriate; calls on the Commission to retain the existing criteria for demarcarecommends that the Commission’s work on the future delimitation criteria of LFA’s must lead to a reasonable delimitation that reflects the real farming conditions of disadvantaged areas; n the ground;
Amendment 1199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Calls for abrupt changes in the move to new objective allocation of appropriations in the second pillar to be avoided, as Member States require certainty to enable them to plan and continuity of financing, but that transitional arrangements should protect existing Pillar 2 commitments until they expire where there are overlaps;
Amendment 1212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Advocates the principle of co- financing for Pillar 2 measures to help ensure value for money but also proposes that it should not be compulsory for all national cofinancing to come from public funds; though considers that at least 10 percentage points of any national cofinancing should come from public funds;
Amendment 1259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)
Paragraph 57 a (new)
57 a. Urges that the CAP tools should not promote products regarded as damaging to human health, whilst the EU increases efforts and funding to encourage EU population to refrain from consumption of such products;