5 Amendments of Fredrick FEDERLEY related to 2017/2088(INI)
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recommends that the support to the ‘Young Farmer Scheme’ should continue and the maximum level of national funding allocation be increased beyond 2 % in order to encourage generational renewalbe reviewed within the framework of the CAP reform;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the creation of an agricultural guarantee instrument, proposed by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) in March 2015, which should make it easier for young farmers to access credit; recommends that access to finance be improved through subsidised interest rates on loans for new entrants; calls for improved cooperation with the EIB and the European Investment Fund (EIF) to foster the creation of financial instruments dedicated to young farmers across all Member States;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that most newly set-up farms are placed in a competitive environment with fast-changing conditions; recommends giving EU farmers more flexibility to respond to changing conditions on the markets in their business plans; urges a result-driven approach which stimulates the development of new innovations and better resource management thereby empowering motivated young farmers; believes that changes in the payment instalments should be considered;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Urges a result-driven approach which stimulates the development of new innovations and better resource management thereby empowering motivated young farmers;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that access to land is the largest barrier to new entrants to farming in Europe and is limited by the low supply of land for sale or rent in many regions, as well as by the competition from other farmers, investors and residential users; considers that the land access problem is exacerbated by the current direct payment structure, which requires minimal active use of the land and allocates subsidies largely on the basis of land ownership; believes that the existing farmers are incentivised to retain land access in order to retain subsidy access instead of ensuring the best use of the land; recommends increasing the activity levels required to receive payments and to target subsidy payments towards the achievement of particular outcomes (e.g. production of specific environmental or social goods);