Activities of Heinz KINDERMANN

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 24 a (new)

(24a) "Recreational fisheries" means non-commercial fishing activities exploiting living aquatic resources for recreation or sport;

2009/03/10
Committee: PECH

2008/0216(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 24 b (new)

(24b) "Recreational fisheries sectors" means a) “Recreational Angling” – also named “sportfishing” (rod and line fishing) – and which takes place from boat, shore or by wading out. Tournament or competition angling is a sub-segment of recreational angling. b) “Other Recreational Fishing”means fishing which takes place from boat, shore or by wading out from shore. Gears are various forms of active or passive/stationary nets, longlines and hand-held lines, traps and pots;

2009/03/10
Committee: PECH

2008/0216(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – point 24 c (new)

(24c) ‘Subsistence fisheries’ means fishing for aquatic animals that contribute substantially to meeting an individual’s or family’s nutritional needs.

2009/03/10
Committee: PECH

2008/0216(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Recreational fisheries on a vessel in Community waters on a stock subject to a multiannual plan shall be subject to an authorisation for that vessel issued by the flag Member State~~Fishing mortality in recreational fisheries and subsistence fisheries shall, if necessary, be taken into account in the stock assessments as part of or along with the “natural mortality” before the setting and distribution of the commercial TACs and Quotas.

2009/03/10
Committee: PECH

2008/0216(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Released fish in recreational fisheries shall not be counted as mortality.

2009/03/10
Committee: PECH

2008/0216(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2

~~2. Catches in recreational fisheries on stocks subject to a multiannual plan shall be registered by the flag Member State.~~deleted

2009/03/10
Committee: PECH

2008/0216(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 3

3. ~~Catches of species subject to a multiannual plan by recreational fisheries shall be counted against the relevant quotas of the flag Member State. The~~ Member States c~~oncerned shall~~an establish a share from ~~such~~their quotas to be used exclusively for the purpose of recreational fisheries.

2009/03/10
Committee: PECH

2008/0216(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. The provisions in this Article shall be implemented within two years of the date of entry into force of this regulation.

2009/03/10
Committee: PECH

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) live non-human vertebrate animals~~, including independently feeding larval forms and embryonic or foetal forms as from the last third of their normal development~~;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Elisabeth JEGGLE, Michl EBNER, Heinz KINDERMANN

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) live invertebrate animals~~, including independently feeding larval forms,~~ of those species listed in Annex I.;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. Where an internationally accepted and validated method of testing not involving the use of animals exists and may be used in ~~place~~stead of a procedure, Member States shall ensure that the alternative method is used. Pursuant to this Directive, testing methods which involve the use of human embryonic and foetal cells shall not be regarded as alternatives.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. the protection of human health in the context of workers' or consumers' exposure to chemicals;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the procedure has one of the purposes referred to in points (~~2)(a~~1), (2), (3) or (5) of Article 5;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) as far as possible, the animals used should be bred specifically for testing purposes;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory phrase

1. NGiven their particularly high level of neurophysiological sensitivity and cognitive development, non-human primates shall not be used in procedures, with the exception of those procedures meeting the following conditions:

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the procedure has one of the purposes referred to in points (1), (2)(a), (3) ~~and is undertaken with a view to the avoidance, prevention, diagnosis or treatment of life- threatening or debilitating clinical conditions in human beings or the purpose referred to in point~~or (5) of Article 5;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the~~re i~~ applicant provides a scientific justification that the purpose of the procedure cannot be achieved by the use of other species than non-human primates.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

However, as from the dates set out in Annex III, Member States shall ensure that non-human primates listed in that Annex may only be used in procedures where they are the offspring of non- human primates which have been bred in captivity.deleted

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is recognised by Community legislation. In the absence of such a method, a procedure may not be carried out if a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, including computer supported, in vitro and other methodologies, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that the procedures which are classified as "severe" a~~re not performed if~~nd which are likely to prolong the pain, suffering or distress ~~is likely to be prolonged~~are performed only if it has been scientifically proven that the testing purpose cannot be achieved in another way and a positive ethical assessment has been carried out.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – introductory phrase

1. Member States shall ensure that an animal already used in a procedure, when a different animal on which no procedures hasve previously been carried out could also be used, may be re-used in asubsequent unconnected new procedures only when ~~all of the following conditions are met:~~it is established that it serves the principles of avoiding, reducing and refining animal experiments.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) the previous procedure was classified as 'up to mild';~~deleted

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) it is demonstrated that its general state of health and well-being has been fully restor~~deleted;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) the distress suffered by the animal in the course of a new procedure is less than the distress suffered in the course of the previous procedure or less than the distress which would be suffered by a new animal;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) the further procedure is classified as 'up to mild' or 'non-recovery'.~~deleted

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2

2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authority, on the basis of scientific justification, may allow re-use of an animal as long as the animal is not used more than once after having undergone a procedure entailing severe pain, distress or equivalent suffering and the further procedure is classified as 'up to mild' or as 'non-recovery'.deleted

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1

1. A procedure shall be deemed to end when no further observations are to be made for that procedure or, as regards new genetically modified animal lines, when ~~lack of adverse effects to animals can be scientifically demonstrat~~the second breeding generation is reached.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 3

3. All authorisations of persons shall be granted for a limited period of time, not exceeding five years. Member States shall ensure that the renewal of an authorisation of persons is only granted on the basis of demonstration of the requisite competence.deleted

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that each breeding, supplying and user establishment ~~sets up a permanent~~names a qualified person who is responsible for ethical review ~~body~~.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 2a (new)

2a. Member States may permit exceptions from the authorisation requirement for projects required by law.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 36 –paragraph 1 – point ca (new)

(ca) a scientifically justified statement that the research project is indispensable and ethically defensible and that the purposes of the project cannot be achieved using other methods or procedures.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – introductory sentence

1. ~~The ethical evaluation~~Before authorisation is granted, it shall be verifyied that the project as described and scientifically justified by the applicant meets the following criteria:

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point b

(fb) the purposes of the project justify the use of animals and cannot be achieved through other methods or procedures;

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point c

(gc) the project is designed so as to enable procedures to be carried out win the m~~ost humane and~~aximum respect for animal welfare and in the most environmentally sensitive manner.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 3 – introductory sentence

3. The competent authority carrying out the ethical evaluation shall consider corresponding expertsise in particular in the following areas:

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 37 – paragraph 4

4. Ethical evaluation shall be performed ~~in a transparent manner, by integrating the opinion of independent parties~~by integrating independent expertise whilst safeguarding intellectual property and confidential information.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) whether there are elements that may contribute to the further implementation of the requirement of replacement, reduction and refinement.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 41 – paragraph 4

4. Member States may allow the authorisation of multiple projects when those projects are required by law, or when standardised procedures are applied, the ethical assessment of which has already produced a positive result.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 43 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the decision to grant an authorisation is taken and communicated to the user establishment at the latest within 360 days from the submission of the application. Should the Member State fail to take a decision within that period, the authorisation shall be deemed to have been granted~~, where the project concerned involves only procedures classified as "up to mild" and non-human primates are not used. In all other cases, no such presumption shall apply~~.

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0211(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 43 – paragraph 2

2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, in exceptional circumstances and where the project is non-routine, multi-disciplinary and innovative, the decision to grant an authorisation shall be taken and communicated to the user establishment within 60 days from the submission of the application.deleted

2009/03/16
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Citation 1

– Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 3708 thereof,

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 2

(2) The objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as defined in Article 33(1) of the Treaty include stabilising the markets as well as ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. Over the years the food distribution plans implemented under the scheme have ~~successfully underpinned the fulfilment of both objectives and, by~~helped to reduc~~ing~~e the food insecurity of the most deprived persons in the Community~~, have proven to be an essential tool contributing to guarantee broad availabi~~. However, the predominant use of foods purchased on the market in recent times means that these distribution plans have evolved from an agricultural politcy ~~of food within the Community while reducing the intervention stocks~~tool into a social policy tool.

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 4

(4) The successive enlargements of the Community have increased the potential number of beneficiaries of food aid schemes in the Community. At the same time rising food prices have negatively affected the food security of the most deprived persons and increased the cost of providing the food aid. As a result, ~~the importanc~~use of the scheme originally set up under Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 hwas ~~grown~~, over the years~~. It is therefore essential to continue the scheme at Community level and further adapt it to changing market developments~~, more and more clearly at odds with the legal basis chosen (Article 37 of the Treaty).

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 5

(5) The current food distribution scheme relies on the distribution of products from Community intervention stocks supplemented, on a temporary basis, by purchases on the market. However, successive reforms of the CAP and favourable developments of producer prices have resulted in a progressive reduction in intervention stocks, as well as the range of products available. ~~Consequently, market purchases should also be made a permanent source of supply for the scheme to complement intervention stocks, where suitable intervention stocks are not available~~The subsequent practice that emerged of keeping the scheme supplied mainly through market purchases is not covered by the legal basis (Article 37 of the Treaty).

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 6

(6) A Community scheme cannot constitute the sole response to the growing needs for food aid in the Community. National policies implemented by public administrations and the mobilisation of civil society are ~~equ~~, above ally, necessary to provide food security for the most deprived. Since the Treaty contains no special provisions for powers to adopt appropriate measures to provide food security for the most deprived, the necessary measure should be taken on the basis of Article 308 of the Treaty. A Community scheme with a strong cohesive element might, however, serve as a model for the distribution of food to the most deprived, help create synergies and encourage public and private initiatives aimed at increasing the food security of persons in need. Furthermore, given the geographical dispersion of the reduced available intervention stocks in the Member States, it can contribute to their best use. The Community scheme should therefore ~~also~~ be without prejudice to ~~any~~ such national policies.

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 7

(7) In order to fully benefit from the cohesive dimension of the Community scheme and reinforce the synergies thereby created, and in order to ensure proper planning, provision should be made for Member States to co-finance the food distribution programme. Maximum Community co-financing rates should be provided for and the Community financial contribution should be added to the list of measures eligible for financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) set out in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005. Higher co-financing rates should apply in the first years of application of the revised scheme in order to ensure the continued high take-up of funds, the gradual phase in of co-financing, to allow for a smooth transition and to avoid the risk of discontinuation of the scheme due to a possible lack of resources.

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g

"(g) the Community's financial contribution up to EUR 307 million to food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community provided for in Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007."

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

(1) Products in intervention stocks shall be made available ~~or food products shall be purchased on the market~~ so that food products may be distributed to the most deprived persons in the Community through organisations designated by Member States. Food products may also be purchased on the market. The proportion of food products purchased on the market should not exceed the proportion of products from intervention stocks.

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0183(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 27 – paragraph 7

The Community co-financing rate shall not exceed: (a) for the three-year plan starting on 1 January 2010, 75% of the eligible costs, or 85% of the eligible costs in the Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007-2013, as listed in Annex I to Commission Decision 2006/596/EC*; (b) for subsequent three year plans, 50% of the eligible costs, or 75% of the eligible costs in the Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund in a given year, as listed in Annex I to Decision 2006/596/EC and in subsequent decisions.

2009/01/29
Committee: AGRI

2008/0105(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 16 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Member States may base their choice on the indicative list of types of operations set out in Annex II of this Regulation and/or any other types of operations, including those in the area of inland fisheries, provided that those operations are linked to the priorities referred to in the first subparagraph and are aimed at achieving the potential effects specified in Annex II.

2008/09/01
Committee: AGRI

2008/0105(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 4 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 36 – point a)

(4a) The introduction to Article 36(a) is replaced by the following: "(a) measures targeting the sustainable use of agricultural land, including inland fisheries, through:"

2008/09/01
Committee: AGRI

2008/0103(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)

(3a ) By derogation from paragraph 2, a Member State or region may decide for a given calendar year to lower the reductions resulting from paragraph 2 by an amount corresponding to the wages paid to employees liable for social security contributions on each farm in the calendar year in question. The Member States or regions shall be permitted to base this amount on a standardised value.

2008/09/02
Committee: AGRI

2007/0223(CNS)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. TIn the case of tuna fishing, transhipments between third country fishing vessels or between the latter and vessels flying the flag of a Member State shall be prohibited in Community waters and shall take place only in port, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

2008/04/24
Committee: PECH

2007/0223(CNS)