BETA

21 Amendments of Elisabeth JEGGLE related to 2009/2155(INI)

Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas simplification should be addressed to farmers at the point of delivery and the administrative and supervisory authorities of the Member States,
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas the objective should be to reduce the administrative costs of the CAP, both direct and indirect,
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for the CAP to be outcome-driven rather than focused on regulation, with Member States offering more help and advice to farmers, and believes that, to that end, a telephone helpline should be instituted in all Member States to assist farmers establishing telephone services for farmers could promote this objective;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that, where possible, Member States should allow self-certification;deleted
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the principle of cross- compliance should be maintained as one of the key concepts of CAP direct payments, but that strong simplification is recommended, without reducing their effectiveness;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need for the CAP to be simpler, more transparent and more equitable; in this respect a single system of flat rate payments within each Member State would be preferable;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for the possibility of autonomous error correction which would allow recipients of payments who unintentionally broke the rules to inform the authorities without becoming liable to fines as a result;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that the basic aim of inspections is to give advice to farmers and put them on the right track in order to better comply with the legislative requirements consistently;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that the fundamental objective of checks is to encourage farmers to comply more fully with the law and that yearly CC controls for statutory management requirements (SMR) shcould be reduced, or even abolished, if there have only been a few infringements in recent years;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Emphasises that the requirement for follow-up checks in relation to small infringements (triviality limit) should be abolishedreduced to random samples;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that the number of CC requirements should not steadily increase;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Considers that the provision ofas little information should be reducedprovided as possible, as the information needed can be found in the Board of Agriculture register;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses that in the first year of application the farmer needs to state the codes for the land used; that if the application is for the whole area, no further information regarding area is required; if the application is for part of the area, the farmer needs to specify the area; and for the second and subsequent years the farmer need only specify changes in the use of his land;deleted
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that the future single payment should be based on a simplified flat rate basic support system based on uniform payments in order to make the CAP simpler, fairer and more transparent;deleted
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses that when payments are made due to an existing certification scheme (e.g. organic production and environment paymentaid schemes), one audit only is sufficient;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Believes that the lack of transparency regarding penalties and obligations on farmers should be eliminated, and that there is a need for more precise obligations for farmersincreased;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses that the current complex system of indicators needs to be reviewed and simplified, and that the existingmonitoring system, annual reports and ex- ante, mid- term and ex-post evaluations, in addition to the ongoing evaluation on an annual basis, have created an overly complex system of indicators and reports;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Believes that requirements for clearance of the national aid schemes must be revised, and that, regarding measures included in the national rural development funds, the level of details required for the approval of the Commission, particularly when setting the permissible amount of aid in the de minimis field and in the context of the aid scheme exemption rules, should be harmonised, in line with the approach used in the Structural Funds programme;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Believes that only one holding number should be issued per producer;deleted
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
32. Considers that the use of handwritten ear tags should be allowed for sheep in the same way as for bovines;deleted
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Considers that for sheep and goats, as for pigs, herd identification is sufficient;
2010/02/26
Committee: AGRI