9 Amendments of Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO related to 2015/2353(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU’s most genuinely common policy, which means that agricultural spending accounts for a considerablen important percentage of the total EU budget; stresses that spending on agriculture has declined considerably in relative terms over the last three decades from 75 % to the current 38 %; stresses, therefore, that each EU citizen contributes only 32 cents per day to the CAP and that this policy has a low error rate in terms of spending irregularities;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the CAP provides income support to farmers through Pillar 1 and provides support for environmental programmes and economic activity in rural areas and prevents rural depopulation through Pillar 2; notes, in this connection, that it is essential to maintain the two-pillar CAP structure in order to compensate and support farmers and rural areas;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that pre-allocated national envelopes in line with Article 2 of Council Regulation No 1311/2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for 2014- 2020 cannot be reduced via the MFF review/revision; recalls also that, in respect of cohesion policy, Article 7 of the current Financial Framework Regulation indicates that the amounts allocated must be automatically adjusted in 2017 on the basis of updated GDP statistics from Eurostat;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that the current amount in Heading 2, as provided for in the current MFF, must remain at least at the same level; refers, in this connection, to Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, which clearly states that allocated national envelopes may not be reduced by the midterm revision; considers, furthermore, that other Union policies must have the necessary financial means to allow the Union to honour its legal obligations in accordance with the corresponding sectoral legislation; calls on the Commission, in a context of migration crisis, to explore the possibility to strengthen synergies between the withdrawal of agricultural products from the market and the distribution of food aid to the most deprived citizens and to refugees through the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) ;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the fixed ceilings for the CAP until 2020 entail much lower margins than in the previous MFF, while the sector faces more challenges; stresses, in this regard, that any use of the margin must be exclusively to address the needs of the agricultural sector, given that long-term planning and investment security are essential for EU farmers; points out that agriculture should not be the only sector to bear the brunt of political decisions, as is currently the case with the Russian embargo; calls on the Commission to provide the European Parliament with an assessment of the impact of the Russian embargo on the EU agricultural sector;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points to the fact that a seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework has proved its worth in the past and, although the current MFF Regulation specifies that during the assessment/review process the three institutions shall jointly consider what the most appropriate period of duration of the next financial framework would be, and that the EP has on numerous occasions stated that this should be aligned with the political cycle at Parliament and the Commission, a seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework has proved its worth in the past, especially in the case of expenditure in programmes under shared management in the area of cohesion and rural development, since the adoption of legislation at national and regional level is long process and also calls for longer- term predictability, and therefore considers that the programming period should not be shorter.
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that farm subsidies are no longer needed; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years have provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning or security; recalls also that European consumers are not ready to pay their food at a price which would be undeniably higher if the agricultural sector was not receiving public support;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to the EU’s balanced regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by farmers, since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural production; stresses that the CAP contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies; recalls that, in statistical terms, one farmer provides seven additional jobs in related sectors; points to the importance of maintaining the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas; underlines how essential is to maintain specific measures in the framework of the CAP towards areas suffering from severe and permanent natural handicaps, notably mountainous areas and outermost regions, and other specific handicaps;
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Strongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; stresses that the common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy avoids distortion of competition within the internal market and generates savings for European taxpayers; is worried about the trend of renationalisation of public responses to agricultural crisis, in particular the mobilisation of targeted payments instead of real European actions ; affirms that a well-functioning and well-financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;