BETA

33 Amendments of Béla GLATTFELDER related to 2011/2051(INI)

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 more than 9 billion by 2050 and demand for food is projected to double by the same year according to the FAO,

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the CAP reform of 2003 and the Health Check of the Common Agricultural Policy of 2008 have substantially increased the transparency and efficiency of the CAP and farmers’ own responsibility and market orientation; whereas this process must be continued and, as a counterpart, the administration of the CAP must be significantly further simplified in order to reduce the burden on farmers and administrations,deleted

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the European Parliament upholds the concept of multifunctional, broad-based agriculture spread throughout Europe and whereas in its resolution of 8 July 2010 on the future of the CAP after 2013 it already laid the foundations for sustainable agriculture and stated that food is the most important public good produced by agriculture,

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

P. whereas rural development is an important instrument of the CAP and whereas the new programmes should be geared even more strongly to the priority objectives of rural development and of farmers (employment, the agricultural environment, ~~water, climate change~~irrigation, energy saving, renewable energy sources, innovation and education),

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers that Member States which currently apply the simplified Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) ~~should switch to the single farm payment system with entitlements;~~must continue to be guaranteed the possibility of conversion, and may calls for support in making the conversion;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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~~areas; calls for these Member States to decide, in accordance with subsidiarity, and taking into consideration the special characteristics of the Member States, 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 must not hamper the necessary structural change;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers that decoupling has essentially proved its worth, given the increased effect on income and greater autonomy in decision-making on the part of farmers and the associated simplification of the CAP, and calls for this also, in general, to apply to suckler cow and sheep premiums; recognises, however, that in certain sectors and regions such as mountain regions, national parks and Natura 2000 areas, where there are no alternatives to relatively labour-intensive and environment-friendly livestock farming, there may be considerable economic and environmental drawbacks which cannot be reconciled with the aims of the Treaty; acknowledges, therefore, that production-based premiums might be defensible within a narrowly defined framework for a limited period even after 2013;

2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 ‘active farmer’ which the Member States can administer without additional administrative effort, while it should be ensured that traditional farming activities (full-time and various degrees of part- time) are classified as active farming;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 a result of which greater environmental benefits can be attained;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Stresses that any further greening should be simple and cost-effective, avoid any overlap between pillars and must be based upon the experience of the CAP's current green policy measures, with a further simplification of them;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that resource protection should be directly linked to the granting of direct payments in order to attain these environmental objectives to the maximum without 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;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 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 payment; 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;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

~~23. Calls for the resources allocated to greening to be reserved for recipients of direct payments and only disbursed in connection with greening;~~deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 objectives; 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;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Considers that direct selling and small-scale production for local markets should be subsidised from rural development resources;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Considers that the general market orientation of the CAP should be maintained ~~and that~~while the general structure of market management instruments should ~~likewise be retained~~be adjusted to take account of the challenges arising from growing price fluctuations;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Considers that the ~~health check approach should be pursued further, as these existing market instruments have also demonstrated their value~~existing market instruments – except in the dairy sector – have not operated as a safety net~~; takes~~ in spite of the ~~view~~fact 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~~, had they been operational, they would have produced a major European added value while also benefiting the EU budget;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Recalls that market-orientated production and direct payments are at the heart of any insurance against risk, and that it is farmers who are responsible for risk prevention; supports ~~the Member States~~, in this context, in making ~~national~~ risk insurance instruments available to farmers but considers, in this context, that renationalisation and distortion of the markets must be avoided;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 of crises to take action over a limited period which goes beyond the existing instruments and is more efficient than hitherto;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Considers that the use of these instruments which have been described should be triggered only by a political assessment by the EU legislature, but that this must happen quickly enough for the Union not to lose the ability to react to rapidly changing market conditions;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. ~~Continues to support the Commission’s proposal to lower the intervention thresholds for market crops to zero, maintaining a – possibly reduced – intervention threshold only in the case of wheat~~Stresses that in the case of wheat and other cereals an intervention system must be put into operation which takes sufficient account of the disadvantages of remoteness from sea ports;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 measures; considers that, in justified cases, Member States should be allowed to make additional resources available from national funds;deleted

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Advocates that the 2006 sugar market reform be extended to 2020 in ~~its existing form in order to develop a system for the subsequent period which can operate without quota~~such a way that Member States which have significantly reduced their production in the previous periods may increase their production in view of high market prices;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45 a. Considers that in order to ensure a soft landing for producers, isoglucose quotas should be gradually increased from the 2013/14 marketing year onwards.

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45a. Calls on the Commission to repeal the illegal export ban on quota-free sugar in the event of the sugar price within the EU falling below the world market price;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)

45 b. Calls on the Commission to withdraw any production charge imposed on the sugar quota, the isoglucose quota and the inulin syrup;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)

47a. Calls on the Commission to examine what role the concentration of the international trade in cereals has played in the growth of price fluctuations;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 b (new)

47b. Calls on the Commission to examine how the dismantling of the intervention system has promoted concentration of the trade in cereals as well as speculation to the detriment of consumers;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 meas~~measures, measures in rural areas concerning energy savings and renewable energy sources, 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 and to the development of irrigation;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
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 appropriate; calls on the Commission to retain the existing criteria for demarcation of disadvantaged areas and to supplement them so as to make it possible to offset the disadvantages arising from the restrictions on farming in national parks and Natura 2000 areas;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI

Béla GLATTFELDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Advocates that, in the case of measures which are of particular importance to Member States, an optional increase of 25% in national financing in the second pillar (top-up) should be possible, on condition that this does not lead to distortion of the single internal market;

2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI