Activities of James NICHOLSON related to 2011/2051(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future
Amendments (31)
Amendment 103 #
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 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas a two-pillar CAP, with pillar one focused on market support measures and pillar two focused on rural development, should be retained,
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas there should not be any differentiation in the treatment of farmers according to size of holding and legal form for the purpose of direct payments, although the possibility of introducing a basic allowance for small farmers should not be excluded,
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas, because the world economy is becoming integrated more rapidly, trade systems are as rule being liberalised more by multilateral negotiations (the Doha Round) and whereas in relation to imports from third countries environmental, animal welfare, plant protection and consumer protection standards need to be raised to EU level and minimum employment standards, particularly regarding child labour, should be complied with,
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas the European Parliament resolution of May 2010 on the simplification of the CAP has not been taken into account in the Commission communication,
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P b (new)
Recital P b (new)
Pb. whereas direct payments underpin farming incomes thereby allowing farmers to deliver public goods. Greening of the CAP can be best achieved via an incentive-based approach using multi- annual, targeted programmes that are delivered via rural development programmes,
Amendment 421 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. In the case of direct farm payments, advocates moving away from historical and individual reference values and calls for a transition to a uniformn area-based regional or national premium for decoupled payments in the next financing period; recognises, however, that the situations in the individual Member States are very disparate, requiring special measures per regfferent. Therefore, regional flexibility is required along with an adequate transitional periond;
Amendment 441 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recognises that the agro-ecological and social conditions of farming vary hugely within the Union, as does public debate about the role of agriculture in the economy, and therefore believes that a “one size fits all” payment model should not be imposed upon all Member States, but rather allow them the flexibility to structure their own decoupled payment models in a way suitable to their own conditions, provided this does not distort competition;
Amendment 460 #
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 thosesmall farmers to remain viable wherever possible, as in Member States 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 theto a new subsidy system shwhich could be made available to their small farmers; particularly through rural development funding; stresses, however, that this must not hamper the necessary structural change;
Amendment 477 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Considers that a special payment to small farmers in the first pillar runs contrary to the principle of CAP simplification, as it would add another level of complexity to the direct payment system;
Amendment 566 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Observes that, for historical reasons, farms in the European Union have a very diverse structure as regards size, employment arrangements and legal form; is aware that direct payments are moving away from a historical basis to area-based payments and that the provision of public goods is independent of farm size; strongly rejects, therefore, measures which discriminate against particular types of farm, particularly as the EU will need to produce more food in the future to meet food security concerns;
Amendment 569 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Considers that any proposal to cap payments to larger farms runs contrary to the principle of CAP simplification, as farms will simply be split up to avoid losing direct payments;
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 696 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Stresses that this method involves no transfer of funds from the first pillar to the second pillar, but instead involves a proportion of the direct payment to farmers being paid only on condition that at least two of the priority area-based resource protection programmes are implemented; stresses that this system should be gradually phased in over the period of the 2013-2020 multiannual financial framework; proposes this method to cover 10% of direct payments in the period 2013-2017 and 15% in the period between 2017-2020.
Amendment 725 #
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 objectivesimproving the environmental performance of farming; 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 pillar can be combined in the basic and regeneration programme; considers also that no new systems of payments or penalties need be introduced;
Amendment 794 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls, in view of the greater concentration of direct payments on resource protection and environmental measures, for a substantial reduction of the scope of CC; calls on the Commission to make significant progress in simplifying and harmonising rules on monitoring; calls on the Commission to consider the introduction of tolerance levels and the application of proportionality within any penalty system;
Amendment 829 #
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 retainbe simplified;
Amendment 862 #
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 934 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
Amendment 955 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
Amendment 968 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
Amendment 983 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42 a. 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 984 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
Amendment 1004 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
Amendment 1043 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Observes that speculation in agricultural commodities should be combatedhas not been proved to cause significant movements in agricultural commodities and cannot drive prices in the long run, as for every buy there is a sell; recognises that futures markets and hedging could play a more important role in farmers' risk management strategies; advocates a worldwide notification system for agricultural stocks; observes that consideration should be given to whether it is feasible to maintaining stocks of vital agricultural commodities at a global level;
Amendment 1082 #
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 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, who are the future of farming in the European Union;
Amendment 1097 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48 a. Advocates greater flexibility in the second pillar, such as through the abolition of the axes structure, and greater flexibility in the measures to enable achievement of multiple outcomes;
Amendment 1141 #
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 demarcation of disadvantaged areasrecommends that the Commission's work on the future demarcation of LFA's must lead to a reasonable delimitation that reflects the real farming conditions on the ground; stresses that any future changes to this criteria include a 'climate wetness' element;
Amendment 1224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Calls for simplification and a review of the cross-compliance rules for the second pillar in alignment with cross-compliance rules in the first pillar as described in paragraphs 27-31, considers simplification of the current indicator system to be necessary and takes a critical view of the introduction of quantitative targets;
Amendment 1236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56 a (new)
Paragraph 56 a (new)
56 a. Declares that the next financial framework for the European Union must ensure that adequate resources are made available to fund measures under both pillar 1 and pillar 2; as a consequence calls for the abolition of compulsory and voluntary national modulation;
Amendment 1249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57