27 Amendments of Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI related to 2011/2051(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that simplification should be a key element of CAP reform, but without compromising the effectiveness of action; believes that this would make the CAP easier for farmers and the general public to understand; takes the view that the role of the two pillars should be clarified;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses that, in view of the new challenges facing the CAP and the need to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and implement the arrangements agreed in the accession negotiations with the new Member States, in the next multiannual financial framework the EU budget for the CAP needs to be maintained at a level which ensures that these tasks can be achieved;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Shares the view that even beyond 2013 the common agricultural policy and the cohesion policy should remain key EU policies, including in budgetary terms;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that it is extremely important to minimise the distorting effects of direct payments on competition in the single market, not merely by decoupling direct payments from production volumes as far as possible, but also by aligning payment rates between individual EU regions and Member States, and particularly between areas with similar or identical types of production;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Considers that the Member States should have the possibility to reduce direct payments in line with farm size or the level of payments received by a given farm, taking into account the benefits resulting from the scale of production;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Emphasises that goods traded between the EU and non-EU countries, particularly food, should meet European quality requirements and standards; points out that the specific nature of agriculture, i.e. the fact that production depends on climate conditions, and also the recent events in the financial markets, highlight the need to improve the monitoring of agricultural markets, while in order to ensure their stability there needs to be the possibility of intervention in years of overproduction, particularly in the cereals market, which affects, among other things, the pork and poultry markets;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Supports a broader view of rural areas, which, as providers of public goods and services, are, or can become, a good place to live and work for many EU citizens, and believes that, consequently, appropriate funding should be guaranteed for their development; points out that this also applies to less-favoured areas and mountain areas;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the current rules for the allocation ofsome countries still need support for catching up and that consequently the second- pillar funding were agreed on the basis of the cohesion criterion, i.e. the agricultural and rural development disparities existing between individual Member States and regions; believes, in view of the fact thaof the CAP should be kept sufficiently strong by maintaining the current criteria for allocating funds, which take into account those disparities still exist, that the current criteria and funding arrangements for rural development should be retained, in particular in the context of expanding the second pillar to take account of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives; points out that this wilfferences in development between countries and help to strengthen European integration; points out, too, that further expansion of the second pillar to include new challenges, including the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, will require the provision of appropriate support for rural arequireas under the cohesion policy, and appropriate coordination and distribution of tasks between the CAP and cohesregional policy.;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that abrupt changes in the allocation of second-pillar funding should be avoided, as Member States expect continuity of financial planning and reliability; supports, therefore, the pragmatic approach of maintaining the current distribution criteria under the second pillar; points out, furthermore, that its ‘greening’ must be carried out in proportion to the development of rural areas;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Stresses the need to improve coordination between the CAP and cohesion policy, including as regards strategy, by means of common guidelines on principles (along the lines of the solutions adopted for the cohesion policy) and uniform treatment of beneficiaries under the various funds, including as regards implementation;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Considers that efforts should be made to improve coordination between the CAP and the EU’s finance, trade and climate and energy policies in order to ensure that the CAP is capable of meeting its objectives;
Amendment 430 #
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 swift transition to a uniform 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 region;
Amendment 450 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that Member States which currently apply the simplified Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) should switch to the single farm paymentbe able to use it as an alternative to the system with entitlements; calls for support in making the conversionfor Member States changing system;
Amendment 470 #
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 should be combined with a simplification of the system and must not hamper the necessary structural change;
Amendment 567 #
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; rejects, therefore, measures which discriminate against particular types of farm; takes the view, however, that capping of support for the largest farms should be considered, at least with reference to that portion of direct payments that serves as income support, and should be degressive above a given support threshold;
Amendment 653 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that resource protection should beis already directly linked to the granting of direct payments in order to attain these environmental objectives to the maximum without, which obviates 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 losses; is aware that good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) standards and other aspects of cross-compliance are not implemented in the same way in all the Member States; takes the view, accordingly, that harmonisation of GAEC standards and binding cross-compliance standards could make the first pillar greener and ensure a level playing field across the EU;
Amendment 688 #
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 agrienvironmental 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 are 100% EU- financed; regards the further 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 paydirect payment (subject to penalties in the same way as under the cross-compliance arrangements); believes that the administration involved in these measures can be minimised by managing them in accordance with the system of the existing agrienvironmental programmes, thus avoiding duplication of monitoring and additional application and administration procedures;
Amendment 746 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Realises that, as a rule, resources from the firstsecond 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 gihaven 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-pillar funds;
Amendment 759 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Advocates compensation for natural disadvantages in the secondfirst pillar and rejects a complementary payment with a view to simplifying the first pillar on account of the additional administrative work involvedCAP support system;
Amendment 842 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Considers that the health check approach should be pursued further, as these existing market instruments have also demonstrated their value as a safety net; takes the view that these market measures, and in particular intervention, should only be used as a safety net in case of price crises and potential market disruption;
Amendment 921 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 957 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers rather that these measures should be promoted optionally, by decision of the Member State, in the first pillar (now Article 69) within the existing financing ceiling of the Member State concerned and that Member States should be allowed, initially, on the basis of national and regional needs, to use up to 2% of direct payments for risk management, stabilisation and prevention measuressecond pillar; considers that, in justified cases, Member States should be allowed to make additional resources available from national funds;
Amendment 1076 #
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 and the need for further development of the agri-foods sector and a better quality of life in rural areas, 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 1145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Advocates in this connection that the compensatory allowance for disadvantaged areas be retained in the second pillar; considers that it should be ascertained what cofinancing rate appears to be appropriatefirst pillar; calls on the Commission to retain the existing criteria for demarcation of disadvantaged areas;
Amendment 1200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Calls for abrupt changes in the allocation of appropriations in the second pillar to be avoided, as Member States require certainty to enable them to plan and continuity of financing; calls, in this connection, for the current criteria for distributing funding among Member States to be retained;
Amendment 1246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
Amendment 1261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)
Paragraph 57 a (new)
57a. Considers that the Commission’s proposal concerning the definition of the term ‘active farmer’ should be supported and that, if an appropriate definition (taking due account of the specific features of farming in each country) is arrived at, it will be an appropriate criterion for the granting of support, which will go to people carrying out farming activities rather than, as is currently the case in some Member States, land owners alone;