38 Amendments of Zdzisław Zbigniew PODKAŃSKI related to 2008/0103(CNS)
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 2, 3(2), 34(2), 36, 37, 82 and 299(2) thereof,
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 2 a
Citation 2 a
Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, which recognise that there is no further justification for a lower level of agricultural subsidies for the new Member States after the end of the transitional periods,
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) The system applied hitherto for funding the CAP provides insufficient support for family farms, leading to the abandonment of agricultural land - especially in regions ill-suited to agriculture – and depopulation of the countryside, with the adverse social, economic and environmental effects this process entails. The criteria for funding farms therefore need to be radically overhauled.
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) (6) In order to achieve a better balance between policy tools designed to promote sustainable agriculture and those designed to promote rural development, a system of compulsory progressive reduction of direct payments (“modulation”) was introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. This system should be maintained including the exemption of payments up to EUR 510 000 from its application and the exclusion from the system of the new Member States.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The distribution of direct income support among farmers is characterised by the allocation of a large share of payments to a rather limited number of large beneficiaries. It is clear that larger beneficiaries do not require the same level of unitary support for the objective of income support to be efficiently attained. Moreover, the potential to adapt makes it easier to larger beneficiaries to operate with lower levels of unitary support. It therefore seems equitable to expect farmers with high amounts of support to make a particular contribution to the financing of rural development measures addressing new challenges. Therefore, it appears appropriate to establish a mechanism providing for an increased reduction of the highest payments the proceeds of which should also be used to deal withsupport farmers' incomes in regions and states currently suffering financial discrimination and subsequently to support measures connected relating to new challenges in the framework of rural development. To ensure the proportionality of this mechanism the additional reductions should increase progressively according to the amounts of the payments concerned. A ceiling should also be set for aid to individual farms, taking into account the number of workers they employ.
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a regulation
Considérant 9
Considérant 9
(9) The particular geographical situation of the outermost regions as well as its insularity, small area and mountainous terrain and climate impose additional burdens to their agricultural sectors. In order to mitigate such burdens and constrains it seems appropriate to derogaterequire farmers from the obligatse regions to apply the modulation reduction to farmers in the outermostif the level of subsidy is higher than EUR 50 000, and thus considerably higher than in other regions.
Amendment 176 #
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 1782/2003 should be allocated between Member States according to objective criteriaall reductions in direct payments should be allocated between Member States according to objective criteria, while at the same time seeking to balance the level of subsidies between states and regions. 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 further modulation reduction should be made available to the Member States where they have been generated.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 182 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In order to help farmers to meet the standards of modern, high-quality agriculture, it is necessary that Member States operate a comprehensive system offering advice to commercial farms. The farm advisory system should help farmers to become more aware of material flows and on-farm processes relating to the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare without in any way affecting their obligation and responsibility to respect those standards.
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) The experience with the application of the single payment scheme shows that decoupled income support was in a number of cases granted to beneficiaries other than natural persons whose business purpose is not or only marginally targeted at exercising an agricultural activity. To prevent agricultural income support from being allocated to such companies and firms, and to ensure that the Community support is entirely used to ensure a fair standard of living to the agricultural community, it is appropriate to empower Member Statesintroduce criteria for authorisation, where such allocation occurs, to refrain from granting them direct payments under this Regulationat Union level.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) The support schemes under the common agricultural policy provide for direct income support in particular with a view to ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community. This objective is closely related to the maintenance of rural areas. In order to avoid misallocations of Community funds, no support payments should be made to farmers who have artificially created the conditions required to obtain such paymentFor this reason, priority should be given to supporting family farms.
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Further to the integration of formerly coupled market support into the single payment scheme, the value of payment entitlements was, in those Member States opting for a historic implementation, based on the individual level of past support. With a growing number of years elapsing since the introduction of the single payment scheme and following the successive integration of further sectors into the single payment scheme and the enlargement of the Union, it becomes increasingly harder to justify the legitimacy of significant individual differences in the support level which are only based on past support. For this reason Member States that chose the historic implementation model should be allowed under certain conditions to review the allocated payment entitlements with a view to approximating their unit value while respecting the general principles of community law and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. In this context Member States may take into account the specificities of geographical areas when fixing closer valuesa single flat-rate payment should be introduced in all Member States, while respecting the general principles of community law and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. This rate should be supplemented by additional payments for areas not suitable for agriculture. The levelling of payment entitlements should take place during an adequate transition period and within a limited range of reductions in order to allow farmers to reasonably adapt to the changing levels of support. However, the levelling of payment entitlements for the new Member States should take place following the end of the transitional periods laid down for the States in the acts of accession.
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
Amendment 226 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Direct payments under the single payment scheme were based on reference amounts of direct payments that were received in the past or on regionalised per hectare amounts. Farmers in the new Member States did not receive Community direct payments and had no historical references for the calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Therefore, provision was made under Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 for the single payment scheme in the new Member States to be based on regionalised per hectare amounts. Several years after the accession of the new Member States to the Community, however, the use of reference periods could be considered for those new Member States that did not yet move to the single payment scheme. With a view to facilitatif unjustified imbalances should occur ing the transition to the single payment scheme and, in particular, to avoiding speculative applications it is therefore appropriate to authorise the new Member States to take account of the areas for which historically support under the single area payment scheme was granted for the calculation of the payment entitlements under the single payment schemedistribution of direct payments, consideration should be given to introducing a flat-rate payment in all EU Member States with effect from 2014.
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) (37) As a consequence of the integration of new schemes into the single payment scheme, temporary provision should be made for the calculation of the new level of individual income support under that scheme until 2013. In the case of nuts, potato starch, flax and dried fodder and flax, 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. With effect from 2014, a single flat-rate direct payment scheme should be introduced in all Member States.
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) The Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia and the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania provided that the farmers in the new Member States will receive direct payments, following a phasing-in mechanism. These payments should be calculated on the basis of a single flat rate in all Member States.
Amendment 241 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) As a consequence of the phasing in of direct payments in the new Member States the Acts of Accession provided for a framework to allow new Member States to pay complementary national direct payments. These conditions for granting such payments should bmplementary payments should be abolished and the new payments calculated on the basis of a single flaid downt rate in all Member States.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 318 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
a) amounts between EUR 100 000 and 199 999, by 310 percentage points,
Amendment 321 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
b) amounts between EUR 200 000 and 299 999, by 630 percentage points,,
Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
c) amounts of EUR 300 000 or more, by 950 percentage points.
Amendment 330 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The maximum payment for beneficiaries of the direct aid provided for in Annex I shall be EUR 350 000.
Amendment 342 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to direct payments granted to farmers in the French overseas departments, in the Azores and Madeira, in the Canary and Aegean islands and to farmer in the new Member States during the period until full payments are introduced.
Amendment 349 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Without prejudice to Article 11, the total net amounts of direct payments which may be granted in a Member State in respect of a calendar year after application of Articles 7 and 10 of this Regulation and Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 378/2007 shall not be higher than the ceilings set out in Annex IV to this Regulation. Where necessary, Member States shall proceed to a linear reduction of direct payments in order to respect the ceilings set out in that Annex IV.
Amendment 354 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The amounts resulting from application of the reductions provided for in Article 7, in any Member State other than the new Member States, shall be available as additional Community support for measures under rural development programming financed under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as specified in Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005,shall be available above all for levelling up aid in regions and states which are currently suffering discrimination and according to the conditions set out in the following paragraphs.
Amendment 359 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – Introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – Introductory part
(2) The amounts corresponding to the reduction by 5 percentage pointsprovided for in Article 7 shall be allocated to the Member States concerned in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 128(2) on the basis of the following criteria:
Amendment 366 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagaph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagaph 2
However, any Member State concerned shall receive at least 850% of the total amounts which modulation has generated in that Member State.
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Amendment 379 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Amendment 384 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Amendment 385 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Article 10 – paragraph 3
Amendment 389 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Amendment 461 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – first subparagraph
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – first subparagraph
1. For each Member State, the total value of all payment entitlements shall not be higher than the national ceiling referred to in Annex VIII. The level of these entitlements, however, must be based on objective criteria and not discriminate against any Member State.
Amendment 479 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2
Article 46 – paragraph 2
Amendment 719 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 111 - paragraph 4
Article 111 - paragraph 4
4. After the end of the period of application of the single area payment scheme, the direct payments shall be applied in accordance with the relevant Community rules and on the basis of the quantitative parameters, such as base area, premium ceilings and Maximum Guaranteed Quantities (MGQ), specified in the Acts of Accession for each direct payment and subsequent Community legislation. The percentage rates set out in Article 110 of this Regulation for the relevant years shall subsequently applysame single direct payment scheme shall be applied as in the other Member States.
Amendment 766 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV
Annex IV
million EUR Calendar year 2009 2010 2011 2012 Belgium 583,2 570,9 563,1 553,9 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Czech Republic p.m. p.m. p.m. 773,0p.m. Denmark 985,9 p.m. 965,3 p.m. 954,6 937,8 p.m. p.m. Germany 5 467,4 5 339,2 5 269,3 5 178,0 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Estonia p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 88,9 Ireland 1 283,1 1 264,0 1 247,1 1 230,0 Greece 2 567,3 2 365,5 2 348,9 2 324,1 Spain 5 171,3 5 043,4 5 019,1 4 953,5 France 8 218,5 8 021,2 7 930,7 7 796,2 Italy 4 323,6 4 103,7 4 073,2 4 023,3 Cyprus p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Greece p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Spain p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. France p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Italy p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Cyprus p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 48,2 Latvia p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 130,5 Lithuania p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 337,9 Luxembourg 35,2 p.m. 34,5 p.m. 34,0 33,4p.m. p.m. Hungary p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 1 150,9 Malta p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 4,6 Netherlands 841,5 827,0 829,4 815,9 Austria 727,7 718,2 712,1 704,9 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Austria p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Poland p.m. p.m. p.m. 2 730,5 Portugal 635,8 623,0 622,6 622,6p.m. Portugal p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Slovenia p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 129,4 Slovakia p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 335,9 Finland 550,0 541,2 536,0 529,8 Sweden 731,7 719,9 710,6 699,8 3 373,0 3 340,4 3 335,8 3 334,9 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Sweden p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. United Kingdom
Amendment 767 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VIII
Annex VIII