31 Amendments of Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI related to 2011/2051(INI)
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas a sustainable, productive and competitive European agriculture makes a significant contribution to the EU 2020 Strategy and to meeting new political challenges such as security of supply of food, energy and industrial raw materials, climate change, the environment and biodiversity, health, support to employment in rural areas and demographic change in the EU and whereas in this context the situation brought about by the Lisbon Treaty must be taken into account,
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas food is a strategic product and whereas farming, which produces our food, cannot be treated as an ordinary market-driven economic sector;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the European Parliament upholds the concept of multifunctional, broad-based agriculture spreadupporting employment throughout Europe and whereas in its resolution of 8 July 2010 on the future of the CAP after 2013 it already laid the foundations for sustainable agriculture,
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas there should not be any differentiation in the treatment of farmers according to size of holding and legal form for the purpose of direct payments, although the possibility of introducingit is essential for a basic allowance for small farmers should not be excludto be introduced,
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)
Recital N a (new)
Na. whereas, according to Eurostat, employment in the agriculture sector decreased of 25% between 2000 and 2009 and that the aim of maintaining agricultural employment in disadvantaged areas should not be abandoned,
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas, because the world economy is becoming integrated more rapidly, trade systems are as rule being liberalised more by multilateral negotiations (the Doha Round) and whereas in relation to imports from third countries should comply with environmental, animal welfare, plant protection and consumer protection standards need to be raisedequivalent to EU level and with minimum employment standards should be complied with,
Amendment 424 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. In the case of direct farm payments, advocates moving away from historical and individual reference values and calls for a transition to a uniform area-based regional or national premium for decoupled payments, taking notably permanent and seasonal employment into account in the next financing period; recognises, however, that the situations in the individual Member States are very disparate, requiring special measures per region;
Amendment 430 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. In the case of direct farm payments, advocates moving away from historical and individual reference values and calls for a swift transition to a uniform area-based regional or national premium for decoupled payments in the next financing period; recognises, however, that the situations in the individual Member States are very disparate, requiring special measures per region;
Amendment 439 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Advocates keeping the second pillar in much the same size and form as it is today;
Amendment 443 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Amendment 444 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Takes the view that first- and second- pillar payments should be ruled out for farms engaging in intensive livestock production and all breeding activities that do not comply with animal welfare requirements;
Amendment 450 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that Member States which currently apply the simplified Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) should switch to the single farm paymentbe able to use it as an alternative to the system with entitlements; calls for support in making the conversionfor Member States changing system;
Amendment 470 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the need for an adequate basic allowance for small farmers, which Member States can optionally determine in those Member States where these farms help to stabilise rural development; calls for these Member States to decide, in accordance with subsidiarity, what percentage of the direct payments to be incorporated in the new subsidy system should be made available to their small farmers; stresses, however, that this should be combined with a simplification of the system and must not hamper the necessary structural change;
Amendment 523 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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, however, that in certain particularly labour intensive 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;
Amendment 544 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls – without casting any doubt on the results of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP – for appropriations under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 primarily to be allocated for measures to promote territorial coherence and boost key sectors (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows),, support rural employment and boost key sectors for area-based environmental measures (e.g. organic farming) which to date have not been included in the second pillar; considers that the budget for Article 68 could – subject to contrary results of an impact assessment – cover up to 10% of direct payments;
Amendment 567 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Observes that, for historical reasons, farms in the European Union have a very diverse structure as regards size, employment arrangements and legal form; is aware that direct payments are moving away from a historical basis to area-based payments and that the provision of public goods is independent of farm size; rejects, therefore, measures which discriminate against particular types of farm; takes the view, however, that capping of support for the largest farms should be considered, at least with reference to that portion of direct payments that serves as income support, and should be degressive above a given support threshold;
Amendment 653 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that resource protection should beis already directly linked to the granting of direct payments in order to attain these environmental objectives to the maximum without, which obviates the need to introduce new, bureaucratic environmental conditions into the first pillar; considers that a flat-rate income payment, as envisaged in a top-up model in the first pillar, must cover costs and income losses; is aware that good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) standards and other aspects of cross-compliance are not implemented in the same way in all the Member States; takes the view, accordingly, that harmonisation of GAEC standards and binding cross-compliance standards could make the first pillar greener and ensure a level playing field across the EU;
Amendment 688 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
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 further 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 paydirect payment (subject to penalties in the same way as under the cross-compliance arrangements); 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;
Amendment 746 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Realises that, as a rule, resources from the firstsecond 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 gihaven 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-pillar funds;
Amendment 759 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Advocates compensation for natural disadvantages in the secondfirst pillar and rejects a complementary payment with a view to simplifying the first pillar on account of the additional administrative work involvedCAP support system;
Amendment 842 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Considers that the health check approach should be pursued further, as these existing market instruments have also demonstrated their value as a safety net; takes the view that these market measures, and in particular intervention, should only be used as a safety net in case of price crises and potential market disruption;
Amendment 921 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 957 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers rather that these measures should be promoted optionally, by decision of the Member State, in the first pillar (now Article 69) within the existing financing ceiling of the Member State concerned and that Member States should be allowed, initially, on the basis of national and regional needs, to use up to 2% of direct payments for risk management, stabilisation and prevention measuressecond pillar; considers that, in justified cases, Member States should be allowed to make additional resources available from national funds;
Amendment 976 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Calls on the Commission to examine the extent to which producer groups or sectoral associations can be extended to all production sectors, associated to market management and incorporated into the risk prevention schemes;
Amendment 1005 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
Amendment 1024 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. States its opposition to irrational restrictions on agricultural production in the EU, such as the sugar market reform, which are undermining food security and pushing up consumer prices;
Amendment 1076 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Is aware of the importance of the second pillar, in view of its environmental, modernisation and structural improvement achievements and the need for further development of the agri-foods sector and a better quality of life in rural areas, but also for attaining political objectives, which should also benefit farmers; calls therefore for second- pillar measures to be better suited to their objectives, so that the effectiveness of growth, employment and climate measures and measures for the benefit of rural areas can be increased; considers that, in this context, particular attention should be devoted to assisting young farmers;
Amendment 1083 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Is aware of the importance of the second pillar, in view of its environmental, animal welfare, modernisation and structural improvement achievements, but also for attaining political objectives, which should also benefit farmers; calls therefore for second- pillar measures to be better suited to their objectives, so that the effectiveness of growth, employment and climate measures and measures for the benefit of rural areas can be increased; considers that, in this context, particular attention should be devoted to assisting young farmers;
Amendment 1145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Advocates in this connection that the compensatory allowance for disadvantaged areas be retained in the second pillar; considers that it should be ascertained what cofinancing rate appears to be appropriatefirst pillar; calls on the Commission to retain the existing criteria for demarcation of disadvantaged areas;
Amendment 1200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Calls for abrupt changes in the allocation of appropriations in the second pillar to be avoided, as Member States require certainty to enable them to plan and continuity of financing; calls, in this connection, for the current criteria for distributing funding among Member States to be retained;
Amendment 1246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57