BETA

8 Amendments of Milan ZVER related to 2011/2051(INI)

Amendment 163 #
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, in the face of growing disparities, loss of social capital and cohesion, demographic imbalances and out-migration, is an important instrument of the CAP and whereas future rural development policies need to work towards a better territorial balance and offer less bureaucratic and more participatory governance of rural development and of farprogrammers (employment, the agricultural environment, water, climate change, innovation and education)which effectively support the strengthening and diversifying of the rural economy, and contribute to improve the quality of life in rural areas,
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 513 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that decoupling has essentially proved its worth, given the increased effect on income and 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,cknowledge 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;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 686 #
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 701 #
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 717 #
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 737 #
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 900 #
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 legislature;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1059 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
48. Is aware of the importance of the second pillar, in view of its environmental, modernisation and structural improvement achievements, but also for attaining political objectives, which should also benefit farmerrural development policies as defined and financed in the second pillar which should continue to work towards more economic, social and territorial cohesion, diversification of rural economies, the enhancement of human, cultural and physical resources and life quality in rural areas; calls therefore for second- pillar measures to be better suited to their objectives, so that the effectiveness of growth, employment and climate measures and meassupport sustainable farming practices and income generation whilst paying special attention to assisting young farmers, moreover to support appropriate infrastructure for capacity building and communication, as well as processing and marketing of food and other value chains harnessing rural resources for the benefit of rural areas ; supports the provision of affordable services to the rural population and for locanl be increausinesseds; considers that, in tadvocates therefore the fostering of subregional partnerships context, particular attention should be devoted to assisting young farmersand networking to enhance local cooperation and institutions and the civil society’s role in local and regional governance, based on participatory and inclusive approaches in planning, decision-making and evaluation;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI