57 Amendments of Ville ITÄLÄ
Amendment 50 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas in its resolution of 8 July 2010 on the future of the CAP after 2013 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, particularly in areas with natural handicaps and extremely peripheral already laid the foundations for sustainable agricultures, also taking into account small farms,
Amendment 55 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the European Parliament upholds the concept of multifunctional, broad-based agriculture spread throughout Europe, including areas with specific problems, 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,
Amendment 180 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
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, competitiveness, innovation and education),
Amendment 463 #
2011/2051(INI)
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 must not hamper the necessary structural change;
Amendment 505 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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, whereCAP; endorses the Commission’s suggestion that in future as well coupled premiums should continue to be paid in certain areas (e.g. mountain regions, northern regions, etc.) in which there areis no alternatives to relatively labour-intensive livestock farming, there may be considerable economic and environmental drawbacks which cannot be reconciled with the aims of the Treaty; acknowledges, therefore, that coupled headage-based premiums might be defensible within a narrowly defined framework even for a limited period after 2013the established, cost-intensive forms of production and products; draws attention, in particular, to the need to safeguard dairy farming in those areas even after the milk quota system has been discontinued, since without a properly functioning dairy sector land used for agricultural purposes, in particular meadows and alpine pasture, cannot be protected;
Amendment 517 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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 premiumsCAP; recognises, however, that in certain sectors and regions such as mountain regions, northern regions and extremely remote areas, where there are no alternatives to relatively labour-intensive 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;
Amendment 518 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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 and Nordic type regions, where there are no alternatives to relatively labour-intensive 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 2013can be considered essential;
Amendment 540 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls – without casting any doubt on the results of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP – for appropriations under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 primarily to be allocated for measures to promote territorial coherence and boost key sectors (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows), and more specifically to safeguard production capacities in mountainous and similarly sparsely populated areas and northern regions, for area-based environmental measures (e.g. organic farming) which to date have not been included in the second pillar; considers that the budget for Article 68 could – subject to contrary results of an impact assessment – cover up to 10% of direct payments;
Amendment 554 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls – without casting any doubt on the results of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP – for appropriations under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 primarily to be allocated for measures to promote territorial coherence and boost key sectors (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows), for area-based environmental measures (e.g. organic farming) which to date have not been included in the second pillar; considers that the budget for Article 68 could – subject to contrary results of an impact assessment – cover up to 10% of direct payments and in exceptional cases even higher due to extreme natural conditions;
Amendment 770 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that direct payments are no longer justified without cross -compliance (CC) and therefore that the CC system should apply equally to all recipients of direct payments19;
Amendment 912 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
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 legislaturecommenced by the EU legislators following a request from the Commission;
Amendment 931 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
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 and barley;
Amendment 1017 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Advocates that the 2006 sugar market reformgime be extended at least to 2020 in its existing form in order to develop a system for the subsequent period which can operate without quotas;
Amendment 1047 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Observes that speculation in agricultural commodities should be combated; stresses in particular the alarming effects of price volatility of agricultural products globally on developing countries; advocates a worldwide notification system for agricultural stocks; observes that consideration should be given to maintaining stocks of vital agricultural commodities;
Amendment 1079 #
2011/2051(INI)
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, 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, competition 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 1112 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Advocates therefore introducing targeted measures, to be decided by the Member States in the second pillar, to attain priority objectives of the EU (2020 Strategy); observes that these measures should be applied in addition to the basic programmes for greening of direct payments in the first pillar and that a reduced national cofinancing rate of 25% should apply;
Amendment 1152 #
2011/2051(INI)
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 whaalls for its effectiveness to be increased; considers that the current cofinancing rate appears to be appropriate; calls on the Commission to retain the existing criteria for demarcation of disadvantaged areas;
Amendment 1187 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Advocates that, in the case of second pillar 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 possiblethe current cofinancing rates should continue to apply after 2013;
Amendment 1190 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
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 the existing co-financing rates should apply also after 2013;
Amendment 1215 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54 a. Calls for new, innovative funding instruments to be geared to the farming sector as well, particularly non- bureaucratic micro-loans for young farmers;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2048(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on the Commission to carry out the necessary analysis of rules stemming from EU case law in order to clarify the legal framework and give more legal security to all parties;
Amendment 17 #
2011/2048(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Invites the Commission to review the existing qualitative selection criteria by replacingadding to the balance sheets, as proof of the economic operator's economic and financial standing, withe cash flow statements, which represent a viable feature of financial soundness.
Amendment 18 #
2011/2048(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls the Commission to introduce means to simplify the procurement process and to reduce the administrative burden of bidders in order to improve the SMEs' chances to access public contracts as emphasised in the Parliament's report on Small Business Act (2008/2237(/INI)); stresses that these means will also reduce the risk of administrative errors; suggests working with a central or regional register or passport in order for SMEs to reduce the administrative burden caused by the requirements in the selection stage;
Amendment 42 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) In view of the health benefits of lower sulphur emissions, and to ensure that the sector is treated in the same way throughout the EU, the 0.10% limit should apply to the territorial waters of all Member States.
Amendment 66 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Complying with the low fuel sulphur limits, particularly in SECAs, can result in a significant increase in the price of marine fuels, at least in the short term, and can have a negative effect for the competitiveness of short sea shipping in comparison with other transport modes as well as for the competitiveness of the industries in the countries bordering SECAs. Suitable solutions are necessary in order to reduce compliance costs for the affected industries, such as allowing for alternative, more cost-effective methods of compliance than fuel-based compliance and providing support, where necessary. The Commission will, on the basedis inter alia onf reports from Member States, closely monitor the impacts of the shipping sector’s compliance with the new fuel quality standards, particularly with respect to possible modal backshift from sea to land based transport-based transport. The Commission should allow the possibility of deferral at national level, taking into account the Member States’ specific geographical features and the importance of sea transport for their trade.
Amendment 71 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) In view of the economic situation and possible adverse effects of this Directive, the Commission should propose specific support measures for the sectors concerned before the Directive enters into force.
Amendment 73 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 b (new)
Recital 11 b (new)
(11b) The Commission should allow the possibility of vessel-related deferral if the continued operation of a given older seagoing ship under the new standards is manifestly and with good reason not economically viable.
Amendment 110 #
2011/0190(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 6 – point b
Article 1 – point 6 – point b
Directive 1999/32/EC
Article 4 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 4 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) 0.10% as from 1 January 201520.
Amendment 137 #
2010/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82 a (new)
Paragraph 82 a (new)
82a. Expresses its great appreciation of the high quality of the Parliament’s interpretation services, but regrets situations in which interpretation into certain languages is offered without being used; stresses the need for measures to decrease the costs of unneeded interpretation at meetings and therefore requests the development and urgent implementation of a system, which avoids the availability of interpretation into languages that are in practice not spoken at a given meeting;
Amendment 138 #
2010/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82 b (new)
Paragraph 82 b (new)
82b. Suggests that such a system could, for example, provide that during working group meetings interpretation into the six largest official languages (FR, DE, EN, PL, ES, IT) will automatically be available, while interpretation into any other official language will only be available at the request of a Member by specific notification of his/her presence in advance, thus guaranteeing the right of Member to speak their own language should they wish to do so, while avoiding unneeded interpretation and unnecessary costs;
Amendment 2 #
2010/2139(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that about 23.7% (€82 billion) ofresources from the Cohesion Fund and Structural Funds allocation 2007 - 2013 are intended for transport, but only half of it will be spent on TEN T projects (€17 billion on must be distributed in such a way as to provide the best support for TEN -T priority network and €27.2 billion for the comprehensive part); the other half is supposed to be invested inogrammes and that in distributing the funds account must also be taken of national, regional and local projects not indicated in the TEN T maps;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2139(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls that projects which transcend the EU’s internal borders must be taken into account in constructing the TEN-T network; observes that border crossing points present a challenge to the TEN-T network, because political consensus alone regarding them is not sufficient – practical implementation is also needed in order for the network to function properly even in cross-border regions; observes that, in addition, attention should be devoted to border crossing points at the EU’s external borders;
Amendment 16 #
2010/2139(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses that Member States ought more than previously to focus on ensuring that the EU’s cohesion funds are used for the right purposes, as the margin for error has been remarkably large in some EU Member States;
Amendment 179 #
2010/2112(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Stresses the need for fairness in the CAP, which should ensure a balanced distribution of support to farmers from all Member States, greater territorial cohesion, and the phasing-out of export subsidies in parallel with similar measures being taken by WTO partners;
Amendment 212 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Regulation (EC) 1234/2007
Article 126 a – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 126 a – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. By way of derogation from paragraph 2(c) (ii) and (iii), in Member States where total annual milk production is small and does not represent more than 2.5% of total EU production, negotiations may be conducted by the producer organisation provided that the total volume of raw milk included by a particular producer organisation in such negotiations does not exceed: – 75% of the total national production of any particular Member State, and – 75% of the total combined national production of all the Member States.
Amendment 192 #
2009/2237(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to adapt appropriate EU hygiene standards in relation to local or distanceplace of marketing and the shelf life of products, to decentralise and simplify certification and control systems, and to promote direct producer-consumer relations and short food supply chains, the sustainability benefits of which have been documented by EC research projects;
Amendment 204 #
2009/2237(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 209 #
2009/2237(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 216 #
2009/2237(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 408 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Believes that there has to be a minimumn adequate safety net within the future framework of the CAP in order to manage extreme market price volatility and provide rapid and efficient responses to economic crises arising in the sector;
Amendment 476 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Notes that the market fails to reward farmers for protecting the environment; therefore believes that the CAP must become greener by incentivisgiving farmers to maximia proper economic incentive to increase the delivery of eco-system services to further improve the sound environmental resource management of EU farmland;
Amendment 614 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Considers that there should be no return to coupled payments as a guiding principle of the CAP; however, given the move from a historical to an area support model, with consideration to the Health Check decisions implemented by the Member States; takes the view that a limin adequated margin for flexibility should be left to Member States to respond to the specific needs of their territory, in the form of capped coupled payments for vulnerable agrassland livestock areaiculture sectors in these territories, in compliance with WTO requirements;
Amendment 673 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
57. Believes that an EU-funded top-up direct area payment should be made available to farmers through simple contracts rewarding them for reducing their carbon emissions per unit of production and increasing their sequestration of carbon; notes that this would have the double benefit of making EU agriculture more environmentally and economically sustainable through improved efficiency and would also ensure that farmers can financially benefit from increased carbon sequestration on their land and put them on the same footing as other industries which are in the EU ETS; calls for clear and measurable criteria and targets to be defined appropriately to allow these payments to be implemented as soon as possible; in every Member State on an equal basis
Amendment 709 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Believes that the CAP needs to further incentivise biodiversity and environmental protection measures by providing the opportunity for the vast majority of agricultural land to be covered by agri- environmental schemes to reward farmers for the delivery of additional eco-system services, while other measures beneficial to the environment such as organic farming projects, the sustainable use of forests, water and soil, and the development of high natural value farming should also be encouraged; considers that all these rural development measures should remain co- financed, with an increased CAP budget if necessary;
Amendment 744 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Believes that to underpin the five key building blocks of the CAP, a minimumn adequate safety net against extreme price volatility should still be available as a rapid reaction crisis tool; to that end, considers that a special reserve budget line should be made available in the EU budget which could be activated rapidly to respond to crises which arise, and that new innovative financial tools should also be considered such as risk insurance schemes and futures markets to help reduce market volatility;
Amendment 760 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63
Paragraph 63
63. Recalls that, amongst the current set of market tools, export refunds should continue to be phased out according toregarding that other trading partners adopt real parallelism in terms of export measures and thereby secure fair trade according to the possible future WTO agreements;
Amendment 94 #
2009/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – indent 3
Paragraph 3 – indent 3
- protereduction of emissions from carbon-rich land (peatland crop bans) and wetland wetlands through, for example, the efficient use of pillar 2 measures ands (growing suitable crops, such as reeds, as an alternative to drainage); and
Amendment 111 #
2009/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recommends introducstrengthening the procedures for EU decision-making ain effectivthe forestry policy thatsector in order to promotes sustainable and active forestry management and wood production and does morwhich makes it possible to tap the potential of this industry, which is the one that makes the greatest contribution to carbon capture;
Amendment 3 #
2009/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas, as a result of the reform of legislation on support for less-favoured areas and the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the previous category of 'intermediate LFAs' has been abolished and eligible areas are defined as areas 'affected by significant natural handicaps' and 'where maintaining extensive farming activity is important for the management of the land',
Amendment 69 #
2009/2156(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers fine-tuning of the criteria for support for areas with natural handicaps to be necessary in order to be able to respond appropriately to particular geographical situations and crops grown and to exclude areas in which natural handicaps have been offset by human intervention; proposes that farm data (such as farm income) be used inter alia for this purpose; emphasises, however, that the decision on the criteria to be used for fine-tuning must be voluntary and lie with the Member States;
Amendment 16 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Draws attention to the payments of Strasbourg renovations borne by Parliament and is of the opinion that it those payments should not be borne by the taxpayer but by Strasbourg City Council;
Amendment 17 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Suggests that its Committee on Budgetary Control receive the buildings questionnaire and the answers thereto at the same time as its Committee on Budgets;
Amendment 18 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Stresses that there is very little added value of Parl-TV because of the small number of its viewers; is of the opinion that Parl-TV's financing and the whole project should be reviewed;
Amendment 47 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls the fundamental principles concerning procurement as expressed in paragraph 18 of its resolution of 24 April 20071 accompanying the discharge decision in respect to the financial year 2005; nNotes that the Internal Audit Service carried out a comprehensive audit of the management and control of the public procurement process in Parliament in 2004 and 2005 and that the final report adopted on 31 March 2006 comprised 144 specific measures for implementation over the period to 31 March 2008;
Amendment 151 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97 a (new)
Paragraph 97 a (new)
97a. Demands that Parliament receives a full explanation and precise answers why the new Visitors' Centre is not yet opened and demands that the Visitors' Centre be opened by 30 September 2010;
Amendment 187 #
2009/2069(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 135
Paragraph 135
135. Invites the competent authorities to renew Parliament's own fleet of cars for protocol and representational purposes with hybrid cars which are less polluting and to reserve the use of those cars to the President, political group Chairs and high- profile visitors and encourages Members to use public transport;
Amendment 45 #
2009/0063(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. This Directive applies to any airport located in a territory subject to the provisions of the Treaty and open to commercial traffic whose annual traffic is over one million passenger movements.