BETA

64 Amendments of Anne E. JENSEN related to 2011/2051(INI)

Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas the incorporation of general objectives into the CAP, particularly relating to consumer protection, environmental protection, climate protection, animal welfare and regional cohesion, is in principle to be welcomed but this must not jeopardiseand would increase focus on possible new earnings and the competitiveness of the European farmersAgri-food Sector,
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
O. whereas, because the world economy is becoming integrated more rapidly, trade systems are as rule being liberalised more by multilateral negotiations (the Doha Round) and whereas in relation to imports from third countries environmental, animal welfare, plant protection and consumer protection standards need to be raised to EU level and minimum employment standards should be complied with,deleted
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
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 farmersthe Agri-food sector (employment, the agricultural environment, water, climate change, innovation and education and new earnings),
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. WBroadly welcomes the cCommission Communication from the Commission concerning a reform of agricultural policy; calls, however, for the principles set out below to be incorporated in the legislative proposals"The CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future", in particular option 2 for reform; calls, however, for the Commission to clarify as soon as possible its overall strategy for a viable and sustainable CAP for the future;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Expects the re-design of the CAP to align with the EU 2020 Strategy priorities of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth; Believes that agriculture is well placed to make a major contribution to tackling climate change, creating new jobs through green growth and supplying renewable energy whilst at the same time continuing to provide safe, high quality food products and food security for European consumers;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls for the CAP to remain structured around two pillars; Points out that pillar 1 should remain fully financed by the EU budget and yearly based, while multiannual programming, a voluntary and contractual approach and co- financing should continue to apply under pillar 2;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Insists that the two pillar structure should serve the purpose of clarity, each pillar complementing the other without overlapping; the first pillar should deliver EU-wide objectives which require 'across- the-board' action whereas the second pillar should be outcome-oriented and flexible enough to easily accommodate national, regional and/or local specificities;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 432 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. In the case of direct farm payments, advocates moving away from historical and individual reference values and calls for a transition to a uniform area-based regional or national premium for decoupled payments in the next financing period; recognises, however, that the situations in the individual Member States are very disparate, often requiring special measures per regionfic regional adjustments through targeted measures;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 455 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Does not believe that the Commission's proposal to introduce an upper ceiling for direct payments would deliver its objectives as it would simply result in the administrative splitting up of large agricultural holdings for pure accountancy purposes; is of the opinion that a degree of degression in the amounts large-scale farms receive from the basic direct payments could be envisaged;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 456 #
Motion for a resolution
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;deleted
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 479 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for a further simplification of the direct payment system, for example simplified transfer rules for payment entitlements in the event of non- activation, merging of minimum payment entitlements, simplification of the rules governing the national reserve and changes to gear them more to young farmers or reduce them, depending on the transition to the regional/national single area payment, abolition of handwritten cattle registries, an effective and unbureaucratic monitoring system for both pillars and uniform penalties; considers that administrative systems which can be proven to be operating well should be looked upon favourably in the light of the scale of monitoring prescribed;deleted
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 490 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls for the introduction of a second-tier of direct payments consisting of 25 to 30% of the basic direct payments in each Member State to be used as an EU-wide incentivisation scheme targeted at enhancing sustainability by improving both resource and production efficiency, making EU agriculture more competitive, in line with the recently published Commission's 'Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050';
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 495 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Calls for a list of EU agreed measures to be established that will deliver the above-mentioned sustainability element of the first pillar with the twin- objective of enhancing farm environmental sustainability throughout Europe while improving farm competitiveness2; __________________ 2 See Annex 2 for an indicative list of measures
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 498 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 e (new)
14e. Calls, however, for farmers to have the freedom to opt in to the measures if they want to receive the sustainability payment, and there will be no additional penalties if they choose not to;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 499 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 f (new)
14f. Believes that any controls put in place to check the implementation of the payments received under the sustainability top-up should be accommodated within the current integrated agricultural control system (IACS), so as to avoid the duplication of control systems under pillar 1, and that when on-farm checks are necessary, they take place at the same time as the checks already carried out for cross-compliance requirements and direct payments entitlements, or at the same time as checks on compliance with agri- environmental measures under pillar 2;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 500 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 g (new)
14g. Believes that compensation for natural disadvantages should still lie in the second pillar; however calls, in line with the Commission's proposals to strengthen the fight against land abandonment and to guarantee local food production for local communities across the EU, for the possibility to be left to Member States to top up the support received by farms situated in areas with natural handicaps through an additional support scheme under pillar 1 using up to 10% of the national basic direct payments;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 506 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that decoupling has essentially proved its worth, given the increased effect on income andallowing 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, 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, ensuring farmers respond to market signals, placing the vast bulk of the CAP into WTO green box and the associated simplification of the CAP, therefore calls for decoupling to continue to apply as a general guiding principle for direct payments;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 524 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Recognises, however, that in certain sectors and regions such as disadvantaged regions (hill and mountain farming, specific climatic areas, etc.), where there are no alternatives to livestock farming, there may be considerable economic and environmental drawbacks which cannot be reconciled with the aims of the Treaty; Furthermore, given the move from a historical to an area support model, considers that an adequate margin for flexibility should be left to Member States; acknowledges, therefore, that production- based premiums remain defensible at WTO level, as part of the fight against land abandonment and in order to boost certain national priorities such as encouraging organic production or specific grassland-based livestock production;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 529 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Calls – without casting any doubt on the results of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP –fore for appropriations under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 primarily to be allocated within WTO limits for measures to promote territorial coherence and boost keykey and vulnerable sectors (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows), or 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, protein crops programmes, extensive grazing systems);
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 555 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Observes that, for historical reasons, farms in the European Union have a very diverse structure as regards size, employment arrangements and legal form; is aware that direct payments are moving away from a historical basis to area-based payments and that the provision of public goods is independent of farm size; rejects, therefore, measures which discriminate against particular types of farm;deleted
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 572 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to submit by 30 June 2016 a report setting out comprehensively how livestock farming in Europe can be safeguarded in the long term with regard to multifunctionality and regional aspects (such as mountain areas, Nordic regions and extremely remote areas) and also dealing with the question of how far the aims of the CAP can be realised in a more efficient, targeted way by means of decoupled, indirect support, e.g. premiums for extensive grassland or pasture land;deleted
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 593 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that direct payments should be made only to active farmers; realises that, under the system of decoupled direct payments, each farmer who uses farmland for production or who tends it in order to maintain GAEC should receive direct payments; calls on the Commission therefore to devise a definition of ‘active farmer’ which the Member States can administer without additional administrative effort, while it should be ensured that traditional farming activities (full-time and various degrees of part- time) are classified as active farming;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 623 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 20
Resource protection and environmental policy componentdeleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 626 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that better resource protection is an element in sustainable farming, which should involve separate support for environmental measures going beyond the requirements of Cross Compliance (CC), which already entail many environmental measures, and being geared to multiannual applications, as a result of which greater environmental benefits can be attained;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 646 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that resource protection should be directly linked to the granting of direct payments in order to attain these environmental objectives to the maximum without the need to introduce new, bureaucratic environmental conditions into the first pillar; considers that a flat- rate income payment, as envisaged in a top-up model in the first pillar, must cover costs and income losses;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 667 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Considers therefore that any environmental advantages can be attained more effectively and directly by means of second-pillar measures adopted by the Member States, which should ideally build on existing agrienvironmental measures or should supplement measures which take into account climatic and geographical differences in the Member States; observes that resource protection programmes should be pursued everywhere by means of a priority catalogue of area-based measures in the second pillar which are subject to basic requirements, particularly in the fields of climate, environment and innovation (Annex I), and are 100% EU-financed; regards the greening of direct payments in the first pillar as lying in the fact that any recipient of direct payments in the EU must implement at least two priority area- based resource protection programmes in order to be eligible for the complete farm payment; believes that the administration involved in these measures can be minimised by managing them in accordance with the system of the existing agrienvironmental programmes, thus avoiding duplication of monitoring and additional application and administration procedures;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 699 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls for the resources allocated to greening to be reserved for recipients of direct payments and only disbursed in connection with greening;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 716 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Regards this model as making a substantial contribution to the simplification of the direct payments system and to the attainment of new compulsory environmental objectives; observes that, under this model, there is no need to step up the current rate of monitoring and the current monitoring capacities, as existing checks can be used, and that checks in the second pillar can be combined in the basic and regeneration programme; considers also that no new systems of payments or penalties need be introduced;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 733 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Realises that resources from the first pillar (as for a top-up model) should be used to pay for this environmental component; believes, however, that Member States where direct payments lie below the EU average should be given the option of making the payment by means of cofinancing from the first pillar or instead by means of financing entirely from the second pillar; observes that the Member States must notify the Commission of their decision on the financing by 31 July 2013; notes that individual Member States' modulation resources should be used;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 753 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Advocates compensation for natural disadvantages in the second pillar and rejects a complementary payment in the first pillar on account of the additional administrative work involved;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 773 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that direct payments are no longer justified without cross compliance (CC) and therefore that the CC system should apply to all recipients of direct payments19;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 782 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Points out that the cross-compliance system makes the granting of direct payments subject to compliance with statutory requirements and the maintenance of farmland in good agricultural and environmental condition, and remains one of the appropriate means of optimising the provision of baseline eco-system services by farmers and meeting new environmental challenges by securing the provision of basic public goods; notes, however, that the introduction of cross-compliance has raised a whole range of problems relating to administrative issues and acceptance by farmers, who had the impression that they were losing a degree of freedom in their work; calls therefore for the administrative burden on farmers to be reduced through a simplified implementation system for cross- compliance requirements;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 785 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 c (new)
27c. Believes that genuine efforts are being made to simplify the system and reduce the administrative red-tape placed on farmers; calls however for a simplified, more proportionate and risk-based approach by the Commission and Member States to the implementation of regulatory controls, the conduct of compliance audits and the system of penalties;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 786 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 d (new)
27d. Is ready to consider the introduction of a small farmers' scheme under pillar 1, only if the primary objective of such a system is to simplify administrative procedures and paper work for small farmers and as long as it does not undermine competitiveness or frustrate the necessary modernisation of EU agriculture; such a scheme could consist of taking recipients of direct payments out of the mainstream basic direct payments system when they are currently below a certain amount of annual support; Takes the view that such a scheme should be voluntary on Member States and allow them sufficient flexibility to determine who is eligible as a 'small farmer' in each country;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 787 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
28. Calls, in view of the greater concentration of direct payments on resource protection and environmental measures, for a substantial reduction of the scope of CC; calls on the Commission to make significant progress in simplifying and harmonising rules on monitoring;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 797 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Considers that CC should be restricted to monitoring for compliance with fundamental and recognised standards and standards closely related to farming, which lend themselves to systematic monitoring;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 809 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. Could envisage a modest adaptation of the requirements to maintain GAEC with regard to altered environmental and production conditions (climate change, biomass), if the introduction of the new requirements in a comparable way throughout Europe were guarantedeleted;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 820 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 32
Market instruments and safety netsafety net and trade relations
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 848 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Considers that the health check approach should be pursued further, as these existing market instruments have also demonstrated their value as a safety net; takes the view that these market measures, and in particular intervention, should only be used as a minimum safety net in case of extreme price crises and potentialmajor market disruption;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 856 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
34. Considers that, in view of the anticipated environmental and climate dangers and the risk of epidemics and considerable price fluctuations on agricultural markets, additional risk prevention is of vital importance, particularly at individual farm level;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 902 #
Motion for a resolution
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 legcould be complemented by new economic and financial tools that are innovative and flexible such as futures markets or private mutualislatureion funds;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 937 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
40. Considers that private- sector insurance schemes, suchas well as multi-hazard insurance, must be developed in view of increasing risks; is aware of the fact that, without public contributions to the financing (from the EU and Member States), this would be difficult; supports the adoption of an EU-wide and WTO-compliant environment to ensure that no distortions of competition occur among Member States; rejects, however, the introduction of EU-wide insurance systems schemes partly financed by public funds could be promoted as an option in the Member States; Stresses, however, that these instruments must respect WTO rules, and that they should not distort intra-EU competition conditions and trade; Calls therefore, for an EU framework to be followed by those Member States implementing these measures, which should be enshrined in the Single Common Market Organisation;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 949 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Considers rather that these measures should be promoted optionally, by decision of the Member State, in the first pillar (now Article 69) within the existing financing ceiling of the Member State concerned and that Member States should be allowed, initially, on the basis of national and regional needs, to use up to 2% of direct payments for risk management, stabilisation and prevention measures; considers that, in justified cases, Member States should be allowed to make additional resources available from national funds;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 985 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
43. Takes the view, therefore, that the Commission should devise common rules on support from Member States for risk management systems, possibly by creating common rules in the common market organisation, in order to keep to a minimum any distortion of competition and trade; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to notify all measures to introduce risk management and to submit an appropriate impact assessment with the legislative proposal;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 992 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
44. Acknowledges that in the WTO negotiations the EU has offered to abolish export refunds, albeit with the proviso that other trading partners (particularly the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) also bring their export support into line with WTO rules; calls for the EU likewise to formulate a system for export credits which complies with WTO rulesReaffirms the EU commitment to phase-out export refunds by 2013 if this move is reflected in WTO partners abandoning in parallel similar measures and measures having equivalent effect, in particular the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1003 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44 a. Recalls that EU farmers are required to produce food to the highest safety, environmental, quality and animal welfare standards and should be rewarded for doing so; believes that imports from third countries should, respecting WTO rights and obligations, meet equivalent standards to ensure fairer competition; calls on the Commission to uphold the interests of European farmers in the context of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements negotiated on behalf of the EU;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1014 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
45. Advocates that the 2006 sugar market reform be extendreviewed toin 2020 in its existing form in order to develop a system for the subsequent period which can operate without quotas15 with a view to bringing in further reforms by 2020;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1040 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Observes thatAsks for solutions to be formulated at global level to tackle abuses of speculation in agricultural commodities should be combated; adand extreme price voclates a worldwide notification system for agricultural stocks; observesility as they potentially put food security at risk; insists in thatis consideration should be given to maintaining stocks of vital agricultural commoditietext that the EU should adopt a coordinated approach with its trade partners in order to avoid further markets disruptions;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1049 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47 a. Calls for measures to be taken to strengthen primary producers' and producer organisations' management capacity and bargaining power vis-à-vis other economic operators in the food chain (primarily retailers, processors and input companies), provided these developments do not hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; takes the view that the functioning of the food supply-chain should be improved, through greater transparency of food prices and action to address unfair commercial practices, enabling farmers to obtain the added value they deserve; believes that the appointment of ombudsmen should be considered with a view to solving disputes between the operators along the food supply-chain;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1057 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 48
Pillar 2: Rural development
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1061 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Is aware of the importance ofPoints out that rural development under 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 grows now an integral part of the CAP architecture and should remain an important element of the future CAP through a well-equipped rural development strategy with a reinforced focus on growth and innovation in rural areas, improving th,e employment 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 farmernvironment, mitigating and adapting to climate change, modernising and restructuring agriculture, strengthening cohesion in EU rural areas, revitalising disadvantaged areas and areas at risk of abandonment, improving agricultural added-value and competitiveness and creating new jobs in rural areas;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49 a. Calls, in line with the Commission Communication, for a more outcome- oriented approach through a general move towards the use of delivery tools that set goals and empower farmers and rural communities to choose their own systems to meet multiannual targets and objectives, such as outcome agreements and simple contracts;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 b (new)
49 b. Believes that Green growth should be at the heart of a new rural development strategy that focuses on creating new opportunities in terms of: - developing rural areas' potential to produce more renewable and sustainable energy from second-generation biofuels, from biomass, agro-materials, agro-waste and the by-products of agriculture; - boosting on-farm small-scale renewable energy production; - investing in innovative techniques as well as projects for applying research and development on farms; - providing technical support and advice to farmers, especially young farmers, in applying new agricultural techniques;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 c (new)
49 c. Emphasises in the context of the EU 2020 Strategy that research and development, the use of new technologies and best agricultural practices are crucial to develop sustainable intensive and precision farming techniques in order to improve competitiveness and increase production and agricultural productivity while reducing the use of scarce resources such as water, land and energy; takes the view that investment in agricultural innovation should be further encouraged with a view to increase the use of the best available technologies on farms, inter alia through the CAP and EU research and development framework programmes, in order to address new challenges, starting with feeding a projected global population of 9 billion people in 2050 while making a better use of resources;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 d (new)
49 d. Believes that farmers can actively contribute to biodiversity, landscape management and environmental protection, as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation, in a cost- effective way; calls for the CAP to provide the opportunity for the vast bulk of agricultural land to be covered by agri- environmental schemes to further incentivise a majority of farmers for the delivery of additional eco-system services while encouraging more sustainable, lower-input production models such as organic farming, precision farming, the development of high-nature-value farming and sustainable intensive agricultural practices; recalls in this context that the agri-environmental programmes must be designed so as to closely fit national and regional priorities and specificities, and be clearly differentiated from the sustainability element of the first pillar in their objectives, scale and tools;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
50. Advocates in this connection thatfor the compensatory allowance for disadvantaged areas to be retained in the second pillar; considers that it should be ascertained what cofinancing rate appears to be appropriate; calls on the Commission to retain the existing c, independently of the voluntary national top-up under pillar 1; Believes that this will ensure that agricultural activity takes place so that land continues to be managed and local food is produced for local communities across the EU, thereby reducing the threat of land abandonment and ensuring a balanced territeoria for demarcation of disadvantaged areasl management as well as a rational development of agricultural production across the EU;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 a (new)
50 a. Stresses that less favoured areas are often of high value in terms of the cultivated landscape, biodiversity preservation and provision of environmental benefits, as well as rural areas dynamism; Asks the Commission, therefore, to orientate its compensatory programmes for these specific areas towards these goals through a careful choice of biophysical selection criteria; Recalls in this context that the European Parliament, in its resolution of 5th May 2010, asked for additional criteria to be considered such as 'isolation' to address difficulties arising from distance from the market, remoteness and limited access to services, as well as the inclusion of a 'field-capacity days' criterion to address the interaction between soil types and climate and notably reflect maritime climate difficulties;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
51. Stresses at the same time, however, that rural structures differ widely in the Member States and therefore require different measures; calls therefore for flexibility to allow the Member States to adopt voluntary measures, thwhich could be co-financing rate for which should be based on the rates current at the timeed by the EU on the condition that these measures have been notified to the Commission and approved;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
52. Advocates that, in the case of measures which are of particular importance to Member States, an optional increase of 25% inthe national financing in the second pillar (top- up) should be possible; Stresses however, that these top-ups should not lead to a renationalisation of pillar 2 or increase the gap in Member States' ability to co- finance their priorities;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
53. Calls for abrupt changes in the allocation of appropriations in the second pillar to be avoided, as Member States require certainty to enable them to plan and continuity of financing fair redistribution of second pillar funds to be achieved between Member States, according to objective criteria that must reflect the diversity of needs in European rural areas and the different priority objectives to be achieved by different Member States; Advocates for these changes to be achieved after a transition period in parallel with the changes made to first pillar funds distribution and so as to avoid sudden changes that may be disruptive;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
55. Calls for simplification and a review of the cross-compliance rulerequirements and controls for the second pillar, considers simplification of the current indicator system to be necessary and takes a critical view of the introduction of quantitative targets;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
56. Welcomes the move towards greater coordination at EU level of EU funds; advocates, however, that the funds be preserved as politically autonomous instrumentbetween rural development programmes and cohesion policy in particular, with a view to avoiding duplication, contradictory objectives and overlapping; recalls however, that the scale of the projects under EU cohesion policy and rural development programmes is different and therefore advocates for the funds to remain distinct and for rural development programmes to maintain their focus on rural communities;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1243 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 57
Miscellaneousdeleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
57. Observes that there is a need for action with regard to national tax law applicable to farms in order to distribute the tax burden more evenly over a period of years;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI