22 Amendments of Bernadette BOURZAI related to 2008/0103(CNS)
Amendment 201 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Further to the integration of formerly coupled market support into the single payment scheme, the value of payment entitlements was, in those Member States opting for a historic implementation, based on the individual level of past support. With a growing number of years elapsing since the introduction of the single payment scheme and following the successive integration of further sectors into the single payment scheme, it becomes increasingly harder to justify the legitimacy of significant individual differences in the support level which are only based on past support. For this reason Member States that chose the historic implementation model should be allowrequested under certain conditions to review the allocated payment entitlements, in consultation with the regional authorities and on the basis of an impact assessment, with a view to approximating their unit value while respecting the general principles of cCommunity law and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. In this context Member States may take into account the specificities of geographical areas when fixing closer values. The levelling of payment entitlements should take place during an adequate transition period and within a limited range of reductions in order to allow farmers to reasonably adapt to the changing levels of support.
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Under the 2003 reform Member States had the option to apply the single payment scheme by way of historic or regional implementation. Since then Member States have had the opportunity to evaluate the effects of their choices as regards both their economic and administrative appropriateness. Member States should therefore be given the opportunityrequested to review their initial choice in the light of their experience, in consultation with the regional authorities and on the basis of an impact assessment. For this reason, in addition to the possibility of levelling the value of payment entitlements, Member States that applied the historic model should be authorisrequested to change over to the regional model. Furthermore, Member States that chose to apply the regional model should be given the option to review their decisions under certain conditions with the aim to approximate the value of payment entitlements according to pre- established steps, while respecting the general principles of community law and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. Such changes should take place during an adequate transition period and within a limited range of reductions in order to allow farmers to reasonably adapt to changing levels of support.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, while introducing a decoupled single payment scheme allowed Member States to exclude certain payments from that scheme. At the same time Article 64(3) of that Regulation provided for the revision of the options provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 5 of its Title III, in the light of market and structural developments. An analysis of the relevant experience shows that decoupling introduces flexibility in the choice of producers, enabling them to take their production decisions on the basis of profitability and market response. This is particularly the case for the arable crops, hops and seeds sectors, and to a certain extent, also the beef sector. Therefore, the partially coupled payments in these sectors should be integrated into the single payment scheme. In order for farmers in the beef sector to gradually adjust to the new support arrangements provision should be made for a phasing-in of the integration of the special premium for male animals and the slaughter premium. Since the partially coupled payments in the fruit and vegetable sectors were only recently introduced, and only as a transitional measure, no review of such schemes is necessary.
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) However, as regards the suckler cow andlivestock production, and consequently the special premium for male bovine animals, the slaughter premium for calves, the slaughter premium for bovine animals other than calves, the suckler cow premium and aid for the sheep and goat sector, it appears that maintaining a minimum level of agricultural production may still be necessary for the agricultural economies in certain regions and, in particular, where farmers cannot have recourse to other economic alternatives. Against this background, Member States should have the option to maintain coupled support at the current level or, for suckler cows, sheep and goats, at a lower level. In that case, special provision should be made for the respect of the identification and registration requirements provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004, in particular with a view to secure the traceability of animals.
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) The de-coupling of direct support and the introduction of the single payment scheme were essential elements in the process of reforming the common agricultural policy. However several reasons called in 2003 for maintaining specific support for a number of crops. Experience gained through the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 together with the evolution of the market situation indicates that schemes that were kept outside the single payment scheme in 2003 can now be integrated into that scheme to promote a more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture. This is the case in particular for the olive oil sector, where only marginal coupling was applied. It is also the case for the durum wheat, protein crops, rice,rice and potato starch, and nuts payments, where the decreasing effectiveness of remaining coupled payments, supports the decoupling option. In the case of flax it is also appropriate to abolish the support for processing and to integrate the relevant amounts into the single payment scheme. As regards rice, dried fodder, potato starch and flax a transitional period should be provided for in order to ensure their shift to decoupled support to be as smooth as possible. As regards nuts, Member States should be allowed to continue to pay the national part of the aid in a coupled way in order to cushion the effects of decoupling.
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) As a consequence of the integration of new schemes into the single payment scheme, provision should be made for the calculation of the new level of individual income support under that scheme. In the case of nuts, potato starch, flax and dried fodder and flax, such increase should be granted on the basis of the support farmers received in most recent years. However, in the case of the integration of payments that were so far partially excluded from the single payment scheme, Member states should be given the option to use the original reference periods.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point a a (new)
Article 2 – point a a (new)
aa) ‘larger beneficiary’ means a natural or legal person receiving more than EUR 300 000 in the form of the payments provided for in Annex I;
Amendment 268 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Any amount of direct payments to be granted in a given calendar year to a farmer thatequalling or exceedsing EUR 5 000 shall be reduced for each year until 2012 by the following percentages:
Amendment 315 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter -a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter -a (new)
(-a) amounts of EUR 10 000 or more, but less than 100 000 EUR, by 1 percentage point,
Amendment 319 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point a
a) amounts betweenof EUR 100 000 or more, but less thand 199 999, by 3 percentage points,
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter b
(b) amounts betweenof EUR 200 000 and 299 999or more, but less than EUR 300 000, by 65 percentage points,
Amendment 327 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter c
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter c
(c) amounts of EUR 300 000 or more, by 97 percentage points.
Amendment 331 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The maximum amount of the payments provided for in Annex I shall be fixed at EUR 300 000 per holding.
Amendment 464 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
Article 42 – paragraph 3
3. Member States that do not apply Article 68(1)(c) may usemay use, with effect from the entry into force of this regulation in 2009, the national reserve for the purpose of establishing, according to objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and to avoid market and competition distortions, payment entitlements and support measures for farmers in areas subject to restructuring and/or development programs relating to one or the other form of public intervention, for sectors in difficulty concentrated in the most disadvantaged areas, such as the sheep and goat sectors, in order to avoid abandoning of land and production and/or in order to compensate specific disadvantages for farmers in those areas.
Amendment 476 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – subparagraph 1
Article 46 – subparagraph 1
In duly justified cases, Member States mayshall decide, by 1 August 2009 at the latest, in consultation with the regional authorities and on the basis of an impact assessment, and acting in compliance with the general principles of Community law, to move as from 2010 towards approximating the value of payment entitlements established under Chapter I to IV of Title III of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. To this end payment entitlements may be made subject to progressive modifications according to at least three pre-established annual steps and objective and non- discriminatory criteria.
Amendment 480 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – subparagraph 3
Article 46 – subparagraph 3
Member States mayshall decide to apply the preceding subparagraphs at the appropriate geographical level which shall be determined according to objective and non- discriminatory criteria such as their institutional or administrative structure and/or the regional agricultural potential.
Amendment 485 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 47 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall consult the regional authorities and conduct an impact assessment on the effect of choosing the regional level for the single payment scheme.
Amendment 561 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – letter a a (new)
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – letter a a (new)
(aa) for developing organic farming,
Amendment 686 #
Proposal for a regulation
Title IV – Chapter 1 – Section 1 a (new)
Title IV – Chapter 1 – Section 1 a (new)
Amendment 741 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – line 5 – column 2
Annex I – line 5 – column 2
Title IV, Chapter 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/20031, Section 1a of this Regulation
Amendment 774 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – Part I – indent 4
Annex X – Part I – indent 4
Amendment 787 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex XI – table 5
Annex XI – table 5