12 Amendments of Lutz GOEPEL
Amendment 59 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 7
Article 1 – point 7
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 69 – paragraph 5 a
Article 69 – paragraph 5 a
(5a) An amount equal to at least 50% of the amounts resulting from the application of the compulsory modulation under Articles 9(4) and 10(4) of Regulation (EC) [No XXXX/2008 (new Regulation on direct support schemes)] shall be spentdisbursed by Member States in the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015 as Community support under the current rural development programmes for operations of the types referred to in Article 16a of this Regulation approved after 1 January 2010.
Amendment 61 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 7 a (new)
Article 1 – point 7 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 70 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 70 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(7a) In Article 70, the following paragraph 4b is inserted: "(4b) Notwithstanding the ceilings set out in paragraph 3, an amount equal to the funds resulting from the application of the modulation under Articles 9(4) and 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No XXXX/2008 [new Regulation on direct support schemes] may be used without additional cofinancing."
Amendment 163 #
2008/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex I
Annex I
Amendment 166 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The distribution of direct income support among farmers is characterised by the allocation of a large share of payments to a rather limited number of large beneficiaries. It is clear thatDepending on their business structure, larger beneficiaries domay not require the same level of unitary support for the objective of income support to be efficiently attained. Moreover, the potential to adapt makes it easier to larger beneficiaries to operate with lower levels of unitary support. It therefore seems equitable to expect farmers with high amounts of support – taking into account the total wage bill of each farm – to make a particular contribution to the financing of rural development measures addressing new challenges such as the promotion of quality production and producers’ collectives. Therefore, it appears appropriate to establish a mechanism providing for an increased reduction of the highest payments the proceeds of which should also be used to deal with new challenges in the framework of rural development. To ensure the proportionality of this mechanism the additional reductions should increase progressively according to the amounts of the payments concerned.
Amendment 177 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The amounts resulting from the application of 5 percentage points corresponding to modulation reductions fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 should be allocated between Member States according to objective criteria. However, it is appropriate to establish that a certain percentage of the amounts should remain in the Member States where they have been generated. In view of the structural adjustments resulting from the abolition of rye intervention, it is appropriate to provide for specific measures for certain rye production regions financed with part of the amounts generated by modulation. However, the amounts raised by the application of any furtheradditional modulation reduction of up to 4% should be made available to the Member States where they have been generated.
Amendment 218 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Member States should be allowed to use up to 102% of their ceilings for granting specific support in clearly defined cases. Such support should allow Member States to address environmental issues and improve the quality and marketing of agricultural products. Specific support should also be available to buffer the consequences of the phasing-out of milk quotas and the decoupling of support in particularly sensitive sectors. Given the growing importance of an effective management of risks Member States should be given the option tomay financially contribute to the premiums farmers pay for crop insurance as well as to the financing of financial compensation of certain economic losses in case of animal or plant diseases. With a view to respect the Community’s international obligations the resources that could be used for any coupled support measures should be limited at an appropriate level. The conditions applicable to the financial contributions to crop insurance and animal or plant disease related compensation should be established accordingly.
Amendment 535 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
(1) Member States may decide by 1 August 2009January 2010 at the latest and thereafter during the period from 1 October 2011 to 1 January 2012 at the latest to use from 2010 and/or from 2010 up to 102% of their national ceilings referred to in Article 41 to grant support to farmers.
Amendment 536 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – partie introductive
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – partie introductive
(1) Member States may decide by 1 August 2009 at the latest to use from 2010 up to 102% of their national ceilings referred to in Article 41 to grant support to farmers.
Amendment 748 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – column 2 – heading
Annex III – column 2 – heading
Amendment 778 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – Partie I – indent 5
Annex X – Partie I – indent 5
- from 20113 the aid for processing dried fodder provided for in Subsection I of Section I of Chapter IV of Title I of Part II of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;
Amendment 37 #
2008/0050(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In certain areas where the producer is not obliged to label particulars, the customer should have the possibility to request additional information. Nonetheless, the indication of the feed materials incorporated in compound feed in descending order of weight, already provides important information on compositional data. Taking into account the recent developments in Community legislation which give higher guarantees as regards in particular HACCP, traceability, strict hygiene rules and the development of Community guides to good practice for hygiene, the manufacturer should be allowed to reject the request if he considers the requested disclosure to infringe his intellectual property rights. This would not affect the food and feed safety, since the competent authorities always have the right to get the exact percentages of all feed materials.
Amendment 114 #
2008/0050(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) if the percentages of weight for the feed materials incorporated in compound feed for food producing animals are not indicated on the label, the manufacturer shall make available on request information on the quantitative composition data in a range of +/- 15% of the value according to the feed formulation, unless he considers this information to be commercially sensitive and that the disclosure could infringe his intellectual property rights;