11 Amendments of Marit PAULSEN related to 2010/2110(INI)
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the EU agricultural sector 1 OJ L 194, 18.7.2001, p. 26 has a clear added value for the European economy and a strategic role to play in the EU 2020 strategy towards tackling the economic, social and environmental challenges that the EU is facing; underlines the need to ensure policy coherence between the EU agriculture, trade and development policies;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. CondemnEncourages the Commission's approach, which far too often makes concessions on agriculture in order to carry on seeking bilateral and multilateral trade agreements to obtain enhanced market access in third countries for industrial products and services; insists, however, that the impact of the concessions made on agriculture should be properly assessed and communicated to the Council and the Parliament prior to deals being reached in order to ensure progress on trade while providing EU agriculture with a sustainable future;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that EU producers are obliged to meet the highest standards in terms of product hygiene, sustainable production methods, plant health, animal health and welfare, traceability, pesticide residue control, veterinary medicine and additives;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Urges the Commission proactively to promote the EU's offensive agricultural interests, given the vast export potential of the EU's high quality agri-food products; underlines, inter alia, the need to step up promotion programmes, including through an increase in the percentage of EU cofinancing; notes that these measures are WTO-compatible, falling as they do into the ‘green box’;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that, in a bid to secure a successful outcome to the DDA, the EU made an extremely generous offer on agriculture, but this was not reciprocated by an equivalent level of ambition from other developed and advanced developing countriesand urges the Commission to continue to seek an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive outcome of the DDA;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recalls that the EU has already significantly reduced its trade-distorting domestic support and asks for firm commitments to do the same from other trading partners; underlines the importance of free and fair trade, which entails common European standards, for instance in the area of animal welfare;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers that the general reduction in customs tariffs should be assessed in the light of the EU offer concerning the domestic support and export competition pillars, and should depend on the possibility of keeping the Special Safeguard clause during a transitional period for a limited number of tariff lines, on a specific exemption from tariff simplification disciplines and on adequate flexibility in the formula for tariff cuts and in the designation of sensitive products; is of the opinion that the proposed mechanism forthrough the designatingon of sensitive products is fatally undermined by the obligation to achieve a significant tariff quota expansion;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Regrets that the Commission is not willing to require, in the framework of trade agreements, that equivalent standards be imposed on imported goods; considers that these agreements must provide at least for compliance with international obligations and standards (such as sanitary and phytosanitary standards); calls for animal welfare standards to be discussed in the WTO under the Non-Trade Concerns agenda;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Points out that any additional bilateral EU sugar market access concessions granted to third countries (for example Latin America countries) will be destabilising for the EU sugar market and will cause preference erosion for LDCs and ACP countries; is all the more concerned by the fact that such concessions, when granted to net importing countries, encourage swap mechanisms; calls on the Commission to continue to exclude sugar and sugar- derived products, including ethanol, from the scope of bilateral negotiationsould imply a continued market orientation of the EU sugar market;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Considers it unacceptable that the Commission resumed negotiations with Mercosur without making publicly available a detailed impact assessment and without engaging in a proper political debate with the Council and the Parliament and calls on the Commission to keep the Council and the Parliament informed in due time as the negotiations continue;