6 Amendments of Elisabeth JEGGLE related to 2008/2026(BUD)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1a (new)
Paragraph 1a (new)
1a. Notes that currently agriculture and rural development spending combined still represent a substantial part of the EU budget; stresses that the predictability for planning purposes and the reliability of the multiannual financial framework, as decided, must be guaranteed; stresses the need to ensure that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is represented by the appropriate committee members in the conciliation committee meetings; stresses also the need to ensure coordination between the Committee on Budgets and specialised committees on budgetary aspects of their legislative activities given their impact on the multiannual financial framework and the annual budgetary procedure;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points to the great difficulties regarding the implementation of the EAFRD, regrets that EUR 2 830 million of appropriations remained unspent in 2007, that EUR 1 361 million were carried over to the year 2008 and EUR 1 469 million were reprogrammed to the years 2008-2013 under Point 48 of the Inter-Institutional Agreement, despite the fact that Regulation 1698/2005 was adopted early enough to avoid such procedural shortcomings; voices its concern with regard to the reprogramming of such considerable amounts, which will lead to a significant delay in funds available in the rural regions; calls on the Commission to introduce more efficient administrative procedures for approving the rural development programmes of the Member States and to ensure that the Member States have sufficient time for the implementation process;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points once again to its position in favour of creating a restructuring fund for milk, with the aim of enabling the sector to adjust to the new situation, against the background of the possible abolition of the quota system - particularly in disadvantaged and sensitive regions;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that further modulation foreseen in the Health Check of the CAP, which transfers funds from the EAGF to EAFRD, would increases the amount needed for national co-financing; calls on the Commission to monitor carefully the programming of this money in the Member States and underlines that increased EU funds pre-empt co- financing by thdetermine whether it is possible to raise the EU co-funding rate for all appropriations under the second pillar or to free Member States from the obligation to co-finance the extra modulated amount, in order to make sure Members States and warns that it should not lead to a reduction of existing co-financingre in a position to implement new measures or reinforce existing measures;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the need for a school fruit program and considers the positive impacts of such an activity on public health and nutrition awareness of children; points out that the principle of subsidiarity should be applied so that the regions of the Member States could decide on a voluntary basis to initiate such a program;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its position on the creation of a milk restructuring fund, which should be used for adapting the milk sector to the new situation - especially in less favoured and sensitive regions - in view of the possible phasing-out of the quota system;