24 Amendments of Ilda FIGUEIREDO related to 2008/0103(CNS)
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1a (new)
Recital 1a (new)
(1-A) Reality has demonstrated the failure of the CAP and the need for an agricultural policy whose ruling principle is the right to food sovereignty and security and whose guiding orientations are: support for farmers as producers; action to contain the productivist mentality which leads to the concentration of property in the hands of big enterprises, the regional concentration of production excluding certain producer regions, and the accelerated disappearance of small and medium-sized farms; reversing the decline of the countryside and the desertification of numerous regions; and combating the instability in productive sectors arising from oscillations in consumption, in order to counter the pressure on the agricultural economies of third countries where agriculture and farming activity are crucial elements of the economy.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1b (new)
Recital 1b (new)
(1-B) The successive reforms of the CAP associated with the progressive opening of the markets, the weakening of the market regulation mechanisms for agricultural products and the integration of agriculture into the WTO, compounded by the application of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) decoupled from agricultural production, have led to the abandonment of agriculture by numerous small and medium-sized farmers and to rural depopulation, thus increasing instability on the agricultural markets and exacerbating the differences between productions, farmers and Member States.
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1c (new)
Recital 1c (new)
(1-C) The recent crisis arising from higher food prices has pointed up the need to view agriculture as a fundamental strategic sector for ensuring individual countries' food security and sovereignty and the importance of ceasing to treat agriculture as a bargaining counter in the WTO to be exchanged for services and technology.
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1d (new)
Recital 1d (new)
(1-D) The state of the countryside reveals the need to maintain the productive role of the land and of agriculture and to permit freedom to choose the options best adapted to the agricultural and environmental conditions of farming, including all agricultural and stockbreeding activities and not just those for which the CAP has historically offered support entitlements.
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1e (new)
Recital 1e (new)
(1-E) The present circumstances of farmers, especially in the case of small and medium-sized farmers and family farming, call for the continuation of aids to production, which should, however, be accompanied by an obligation to cultivate and maintain under production the areas for which the aid is received, the aim being to put an end to the present injustice of some producers and small farmers receiving little or nothing.
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 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.
Amendment 168 #
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 with 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. Also from the viewpoint of fairness, a maximum threshold should be established for the amount received in aids per holding, in the region of EUR 200 000 per farmer, other than for cooperatives. This upper threshold should, however, be modifiable where there is creation of jobs with rights.
Amendment 175 #
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 constituted as a fund, to be allocated between Member States according to objective criteria. 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, such as land area, employment and GDP per capita.
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18a (new)
Recital 18a (new)
(18-A) The administration of small sums could prove an onerous task for the relevant authorities in the Member States. The aid regimes make no distinction between farmers receiving smaller and larger amounts, and the eligibility conditions and administrative and control arrangements are identical. The creation of a simplified aid scheme of a voluntary nature for farmers receiving amounts of up to EUR 1000 could resolve this problem, on the basis of a fixed lump-sum annual payment for farmers participating in the scheme. All farmers receiving aid of less than EUR 1000 would be awarded a supplement until reaching that threshold.
Amendment 199 #
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, 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 values. 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 supportthe conditions for the single payment should include the obligation to cultivate and maintain under production the areas for which the aid is received.
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point aa (new)
Article 2 – point aa (new)
a-A) "major beneficiary": an individual or collective person receiving more than EUR 200 000 under the payments referred to in Annex I;
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introduction
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introduction
1. Any amount of direct payments to be granted in a given calendar year to a farmer that exceeds EUR 510 000 shall be reduced for each year until 2012 by theas following percentages:
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
a) for sums between 10 000 and 19 999 EUR, 6% in 2009:, 7%, in 2010, 9% in 2011 and 10% in 2012;
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
b) 2010: 9%,for sums between 20 000 and 29 999 EUR, 7% in 2009, 8% in 2010, 10% in 2011 and 13% in 2012;
Amendment 290 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c
c) 2011: 11%,for sums between 30 000 and 49 999 EUR, 8% in 2009, 10% in 2010, 12% in 2011 and 15% in 2012;
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point d
d) 2012: 13%.for sums between 50 000 and 99 999 EUR, 10% in 2009, 13% in 2010, 15% in 2011 and 18% in 2012;
Amendment 303 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point da (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point da (new)
da) for sums between 100 000 and 199 999 EUR, 13% in 2009, 17% in 2010, 21% in 2011 and 25% in 2012.
Amendment 306 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 341 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Amendment 357 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introduction
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – introduction
2. The amounts corresponding to the reduction by 5 percentage points shall be allocated to the Member States concerned in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 128(2)resulting from the application of modulation shall be distributed among the Member States on the basis of the following criteria:
Amendment 371 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. The remaining amount resulting from the application of Article 7(1) and the amounts resulting from the application of Article 7(2) shall be allocated to the Member State where the corresponding amounts have been generated, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 128(2). They shall be used in accordance with Article 69(5a) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005shall be distributed among the Member States.
Amendment 419 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not grant direct payments to a farmer in one the following cases: (a) where the total amount of direct payments claimed or due to be granted in a given calendar year does not exceed EUR 250, or (b) where the eligible area of the holding for which direct payments are claimed or due to be granted does not exceed one hectare. However, Cyprus may set a minimum eligible area of 0.3 hectares and Malta of 0.1 hectares. However, farmers holding special entitlements referred to in Article 45(1) shall be subject to the condition referrDirect payments are guaranteed to all farmers. Farmers receiving direct support of less than EUR 1000 shall be entited to a complement until that threshold has been reached, to in point (a)be paid once a year.
Amendment 446 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. PaymentsThe total payment, divided at the most into two periodic payments, under support schemes listed in Annex I shall not be made before the controls with regard to eligibility conditions, to be carried out by the Member State pursuant to Article 22, have been finalised. The first periodic payment, of a maximum of 75% of the total payment estimated as owing, may be made before the conclusion of the controls.
Amendment 558 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iii a (new)
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iii a (new)
iii a) in order to compensate for specific disadvantages affecting farmers and/or farming systems in areas which are vulnerable in economic and social terms or are environmentally sensitive;