Activities of Krzysztof JURGIEL related to 2020/2085(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation report on on-farm animal welfare (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT Implementation report on on-farm animal welfare
Amendments (16)
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas European food-production standards, including animal welfare criteria, are the highest and most rigorous in the world, and whereas external trade agreements concluded by the EU must ensure that our agricultural markets are sufficiently protected against unfair competition and price dumping on the part of third countries;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas more uniform application wording of existing animal welfare legislation is a prerequisite to raising these standards and universal compliance with these standards;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the current legislation is partly obsolete and lags behind the scientific advances and technical progress made in farming practices, and implementation of the legislation is highly inconsistent across Member States;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T a (new)
Recital T a (new)
Ta. whereas in the coming years a range of increased risk factors for stability and for cost-effectiveness of agricultural production in the EU can be expected to have a cumulative effect; such as the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, reduction of the overall EU budget including the CAP, systemic reform of the CAP along with additional criteria for subsidies, the Green Deal Strategy and its reduction targets and the unprecedented scale of increase in environmental ambition, and the prospective prohibition of cage farming by 2027, as well as negative global demographic trends and the rapidly growing problem of farm abandonment;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas labelling can only be effective if it is easy for consumers to understand, designed for an integrated single market and underpinned by a coherent EU trade policy; whereas research and public consultation findings show that stakeholders are not fully behind the proposal for mandatory labelling;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for any future legislative initiative (whether the establishment of new legislation or a review of existing texts) entailing an amendment or change to the livestock-raising system (including accommodation) to be based on sound, recent scientific data derived from research grounded in a systemic approach and not focused on any single aspect of sustainability; advocates for balance to be maintained and, for scientific advice on how the desired changes will affect the animals, the environment and the farmers to be followed, and for the competent bodies of the Member States to be consulted as early as possible in the legislative process;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that changes must be made after scientific evaluation and in consultation with competent bodies in EU Member States, as well as with a view to meeting citizens’ needs, with due account for consumers’ choices and purchasing power;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission to cease work on the proposal to limit cage farming as proposed in the ‘End the Cage Age’ Initiative; considers complete prohibition of cage farming in the EU by 2027 for all of the mentioned species, namely laying hens, rabbits, pullets, broiler breeders, layer breeders, quail, ducks and geese, and piglets, as well as cattle pens, to be a radical, reckless solution that is detrimental to the continuity of supply chains and the cost- effectiveness of agricultural production; recommends that the EC focus its activities instead on enhancing food security and making the EU agricultural market more robust;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Warns that any potential changes to cages farming will need to be accompanied by precise and unambiguous definitions of what constitutes a cage; in addition, phasing out cage rearing could, for instance, increase the risk of spreading infectious diseases among farm animals and increase the stress caused by territorial dominance and rivalry, which is harmful to their health;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that investments in improved animal welfare incur higher production costs, no matter the type of livestock farming concerned; notes that, unless covered by financial aid or a return on investment from the market, the rise in production costs means that farmers will not be able to invest in animal welfare; for this reason it also advocates that any raising of animal welfare standards take place gradually and in a responsible manner, based on a system of financial incentives, including using funds outside the CAP budget;
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to reword its regulatory framework to make it clearer, with a view not to tightening rules up but rather to making the objectives and indicators more easily comprehensible and, thereby, to leaving less room for interpretation and enabling uniform national transposition among Member States; suggests updating the general directive to include the Commission’s objectives and expectations regarding the welfare of farm animals and working on species-specific directives, with due account for the nature of livestock farming, the various stages of the animals’ lives, on- farm practices unrelated to livestock farming, traditions and regional conditions, and the diversity of soil and weather conditions;
Amendment 363 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to improve cooperation between all the stakeholders concerned and to facilitate dialogue between the various stakeholders in the Member States so as to enable joint consideration of developments in livestock-farming systems; encourages the sharing of ‘good’ practices between livestock-farming sectors and countries; wishes to see the development of tools to encourage pioneering livestock farmers to participate in development projects; asks for livestock farmers to be involved at all stages of the studies carried out in Europe’s various regions; wishes to see the study documents and documents for disseminating good practice translated into all the languages of the European Union; recognises the potential of the Horizon Europe programme for research and innovation, and expects a geographical balance between Member States in terms of access to finance for the projects;
Amendment 368 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Urges the Commission to link its various strategies by implementing rules drawn up in a manner consistent with the European Green Deal, the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy and agricultural, trade and promotion policies; and recommends, in particular, holistic assessment of the impact of all of the Green Deal strategies on the economic stability of EU farms in individual Member States;
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Calls on the Commission to make ensuring a level playing field as regards compliance with animal welfare and environmental protection standards by EU and third-country entities top priority when negotiating and concluding Free Trade Agreements, to protect EU agricultural markets from unfair competition from outside and dumping;
Amendment 389 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Deplores the limited return on investment for farmers who take part in voluntary animal welfare recognition schemes; Deplores the lack of a return on investment for farmers who take part in voluntary animal welfare recognition schemes; notes, further, that animal welfare labelling will only prove successful if a return on investment is forthcoming from the higher price point;
Amendment 408 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Notes that mandatory labelling legislation could be discouraging for private undertakings that invest in product diversity and observe higher animal welfare standards as market leverage;