6 Amendments of Alfreds RUBIKS related to 2009/2236(INI)
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, to date, the Common Agricultural Policy has met its goals with regard to achieving better productivity in the food chain, contributstriving to achieve fairer standard of living for the agricultural community, market stabilisation and the provision of food supplies to EU consumers at reasonable prices,
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Points out, most importantly, that in the future European agricultural policy must remain a common policy and that only a harmonised level of support across the EU with a common set of objectives and rules can deliver the appropriate level playing field for farmers and a properly functioning Single Market with fair competitive conditions for agricultural productfarmers within the EU;
Amendment 427 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls for a fairer distribution of CAP payments and insists that it should be fair to farmers in both new and old Member States8 ;
Amendment 567 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 – point 1
Paragraph 48 – point 1
(1) Believes that in order to reduce the disparities in the distribution of direct support funds between Member States, the hectare basis alone will not be sufficient and, therefore, calls for additional objective criteria such as a purchasing power coefficientgriculture employment, land, environmental criteria, between Member States rural areas, to be used to achieve an overall balanced distribution;
Amendment 593 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Believes that direct support should move to an area basis in all Member States by 2020the latest 2014, allowing those that are still using the historical payments system the flexibility to phase in the difficult changes at their own speed9 ;
Amendment 611 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Considers that there should be no return to coupled payments as a guiding principle of the CAP; however, given the move from a historical to an area support model, takes the view that a limited margin for flexibility should be left to Member States to respond to the specific needs of their territory, in the form of capped coupled payments for vulnerable grassland livestock areas, under Rural development policy in compliance with WTO requirements;