23 Amendments of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2008/0103(CNS)
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Experience drawn from the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/200112 shows that certain elements of the support mechanism need to be adjusted. In particular the decoupling of direct support shcould be extended and the functioning of the Single Payment Scheme shcould be simplified. It should also be noted that Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 has been substantially amended since its entry into force. In the light of these developments and in the interest of clarity it should be repealed and replaced by a new Regulation.
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The savings madefunds obtained through the modulation mechanism introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 are used to finance measures under the rural development policy. Since the adoption of that regulation the agricultural sector has been faced with a number of new and demanding challenges such as climate change, the increasing importance of bio- energy, as well as the need for a better water management and a more effective protection of biodiversity. The European Community, as party to the Kyoto Protocol13, has been called to adapt its policies in the light of the climate change considerations. Furthermore, following serious problems related to water scarcity and droughts, water management issues should be further addressed24. Protecting biodiversity remains a major challenge and while important progress has been made, the achievement of the European Community's biodiversity target for 2010 1 Council Decision 2002/358/EC (OJ L 130, 15.5.2002, p. 1). 2 Council Conclusions, Luxembourg, 30.10.2007, 13888/07. will require additional efforts15. The Community acknowledges the need to tackle these new challenges in the framework of its policies. In the area of agriculture, rural development programs adopted under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2006 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)26 are an appropriate tool to deal with them. To enable Member States to revise their rural development programmes accordingly without being required to reduce their current rural development activities in other areas, additional funding needs to be made available. However, the financial perspectives for the period 2007 to 2013 do not provide for the financial means to reinforce the Community's rural development policy as necessary. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to mobilise a large part of the financial resources needed by providing for a gradual increase of the reduction of direct payments through modulation. 1 2 3 4 5 6Council Conclusion, Brussels, 18.12.2006, 16164/06. OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2012/2006 (OJ L 384, 29.12.2006, p. 8). Council Decision 2002/358/EC (OJ L 130, 15.5.2002, p. 1). Council Conclusions, Luxembourg, 30.10.2007, 13888/07. Council Conclusion, Brussels, 18.12.2006, 16164/06. OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2012/2006 (OJ L 384, 29.12.2006, p. 8).
Amendment 50 #
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 1782/2003the reductions referred to in this Regulation 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 furtherthe new modulation reductionpercentages and maximum aid thresholds should be made available to the Member States where they have been generated.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, while introducing a decoupled single payment scheme allowed Member States to exclude certain payments from that scheme. At the same time Article 64(3) of that Regulation provided for the revision of the options provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 5 of its Title III, in the light of market and structural developments. An analysis of the relevant experience shows that decoupling introduces flexibility in the choice of producers, enabling them to take their production decisions on the basis of profitability and market response. This is particularly the case for the arable crops, hops and seeds sectors, and to a certain extent, also the beef sector. Therefore, the partially coupled payments in these sectors should be integrated into the single payment scheme. In order for farmers in the beef sector to gradually adjust to the new support arrangements provision should be made for a phasing-in of the integration of the special premium for male animals and the slaughter premiumIt is therefore desirable to authorise those Member States which so decide to continue decoupling aid. Since the partially coupled payments in the fruit and vegetable sectors were only recently introduced, and only as a transitional measure, no review of such schemes is necessary.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) However, as regards the suckler cow and sheep and goat sector it appears that maintaining a minimum level of agricultural production may still be necessary for balance in certain sectors and for the agricultural economies in certain regions and, in particular, where farmers cannot have recourse to other economic alternatives. Against this background, Member States should have the option to maintain coupled support at the current level or, for suckler cows, at a lower level. In that case, special provision should be made for the respect of the identification and registration requirements provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council1 and Council Regulation (EC) No 21/20042, in particular with a view to secure the traceability of animals.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Member States should be allowed to use up to 120% of their ceilings for granting specific support in clearly defined cases. 1 OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1. 2 OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p. 8. 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 to financially contribute to the premiums farmers pay for cropagricultural 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 cropagricultural insurance and animal or plant disease related compensation should be established accordingly.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32 a (new)
Recital 32 a (new)
(32a) In view of the increasing importance of effective risk management, Member States should be offered the option of contributing financially to the payment of the agricultural insurance premiums paid by farmers, as well as to the funding of financial compensation for certain economic losses arising from animal diseases.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) The de-coupling of direct support and the introduction of the single payment scheme were essential elements in the process of reforming the common agricultural policy. However several reasons called in 2003 for maintaining specific support for a number of crops. Experience gained through the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 together with the evolution of the market situation indicates that schemes that were kept outside the single payment scheme in 2003 can now, at Member States' discretion, be integrated into that scheme to promote a more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture. This is the case in particular for the olive oil sector, where only marginal coupling was applied. It is also the case for the durum wheat, protein crops, rice, potato starch, and nuts payments, where the decreasing effectiveness of remaining coupled payments, supports the decoupling option. In the case of flax it is also appropriate to abolish the support for processing and to integrate the relevant amounts into the single payment scheme. As regards rice, dried fodder, potato starch and flax a transitional period should be provided for in order to ensure their shift to decoupled support to be as smooth as possible. As regards nuts, Member States should be allowed to continue to pay the national part of the aid in a coupled way in order to cushion the effects of decoupling.
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) As a consequence of the possible integration of new schemes into the single payment scheme, provision should be made for the calculation of the new level of individual income support under that scheme. In the case of nuts, potato starch, flax and dried fodder, such increase should be granted on the basis of the support farmers received in most recent years. However, in the case of the integration of payments that were so far partially excluded from the single payment scheme, Member states should be given the option to use the original reference periods.
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point d
Article 1 – point d
d) support schemes for farmers producing rice, protein plants, dry fodder, starch potatoes, cotton, sugar, fruit and vegetables, nuts, tobacco, sheep meat and goat meat and beef and veal;
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
The reductions referred to in paragraph 1 shall be increased for the: (a) amounts between (a) amounts between EUR 100 000 and 199 999, EUR 100 000 and 199 999, by 3 percentage points, by 2 percentage points, (b) amounts between (b) amounts between EUR 200 000 and 299 999, EUR 200 000 and 299 999, by 6 percentage points, by 3 percentage points, (c) amounts of EUR 300 (c) amounts of EUR 300 000 or more, by 9 000 or more, by 4 percentage points. percentage points.
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 - introductory sentence
Article 68 – paragraph 1 - introductory sentence
1. Member States may decide by 1 August 2009 at the latest to use from 2010 up to 120% of their national ceilings referred to in Article 41 to grant support to farmers:
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 - point d
Article 68 – paragraph 1 - point d
d) in the form of contributions to cropagricultural insurance premiums in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 69;
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 - point e
Article 68 – paragraph 1 - point e
e) mutual funds for animal and plant diseases in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 70.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – title
Article 69 – title
Crop insurance Agricultural insurance
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 1
Article 69 – paragraph 1
1. Member States may grant financial contributions to premiums for crop insurance against losses caused by adverse climatic events. agricultural insurance against financial losses caused by adverse climatic events or by animal or plant diseases. For the purpose of this article, For the purpose of this article: 'adverse climatic event' means weather conditions which can be assimilated to a natural disaster, such as frost, hail, ice, rain or drought and destroy more than 30% of the average of annual production of a given farmer in the preceding three-year period or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and lowest entry. - 'adverse climatic event' means weather conditions which can be assimilated to a natural disaster, such as frost, hail, ice, rain or drought and destroy more than 30% of the average of annual production of a given farmer in the preceding three-year period or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and lowest entry; - 'financial losses' means any additional cost incurred by a farmer in the wake of exceptional measures adopted by himself with the aim of reducing supplies to the market in question or any substantial loss in production. It shall not mean costs for which compensation could be paid under other Community provisions or costs arising from the application of any other health, veterinary or plant health measure.
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 69 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. The financial contribution granted per farmer shall be set at 680% or 50% of the insurance premium due. Member States may decide to increase the financial contribution to 70% taking account of the climatic situation or the situation of the sector concerned, pursuant to the criteria laid down in Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) 1857/2007.
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 3
Article 69 – paragraph 3
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 1
Article 70 – paragraph 1
1. Member States may provide for financial compensation to be paid to farmers for economic losses caused by the outbreak ofnatural disasters, adverse climate phenomena or animal or plant diseases, by way of financial contributions to mutual funds.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 70 – paragraph 2 – point a
a) 'mutual fund' shall mean a system accredited by the Member State in accordance with national law for affiliated farmers to insure themselves, by granting compensation payments to such farmers affected by economic losses caused by the outbreakto their farms arising from natural disasters, adverse climate phenomena ofr animal or plantvegetable diseases;
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 70 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
2aa. 'Adverse climate phenomena' shall mean weather conditions assimilable to a natural disaster such as freezing, hail, ice, rain or drought which lead to the destruction of more than 30% of a given farmer's average annual production over the three previous years or of his average triennial production on the basis of the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and lowest levels.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 70 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Any financial contribution shall not exceed 680% of the cost referred to in paragraph 4. Member States may decide to increase their financial contribution to 70% taking account of the situation of the sector concerned. Any cost not covered by financial contributions shall be borne by the affilssociated farmers.