210 Amendments of Stéphane LE FOLL
Amendment 196 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Heading I (new) before paragraph 1
Heading I (new) before paragraph 1
Amendment 201 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the communication from the Commission concerning a reform of agricultural policy; calls, however, for the principles set emphasises the need for a thoroughgoing reform of that common policy in order to take account below to be incorporated in the legislative proposalof the changed nature of the farming industry in the EU27 and the new international context of globalisation; calls for the continued implementation of a strong and sustainable CAP with a budget commensurate with the ambitious objectives to be pursued in an effort to meet the new challenges;
Amendment 415 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 464 #
2011/2051(INI)
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 theseIs strongly in favour of establishing a specific, simplified aid scheme for the very numerous small farmers in Europe, who help to stabilise rural development and employment; in view of the very considerable diversity of farm structures within the EU, calls for 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 thisto participate in defining these small farmers, adopting a common criterion: the predominant role of family labour; stresses that having the benefit of this scheme must not hamper the necessary structural change in order to modernise their farms;
Amendment 481 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 502 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers thait 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 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,sirable, within the limits set by the Union’s WTO commitments, not to decouple all aid in support of certain types of production (suckler cow and sheep premiums, etc.) so as to enable Member States to cope with problems specific to their territory and enable the Union to preserve its rich heritage in therefore, that production- based premiums might be defensible within a narrowly defined framework for a limited period even after 2013ms of the diversity of types of production;
Amendment 558 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. ObservesIs conscious of the fact 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, labour productivity and legal form; supports the principles of imposing ceilings and/or degressivity of direct aid in the light of the size of holding, except in the case of agricultural cooperatives or where employment is an important factor; stresses that in this way priority should be assigned to businesses which employ labour;
Amendment 575 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to submit by 31 December 2016 a report setting out comprehensively how livestock farming in Europe can be safeguarded in the long term with regard to multifunctionality and regional aspects (such as mountain areas, Nordic regions and extremely remote areas) and also dealing with the question of how far the aims of the CAP can be realised in a more efficient, targeted way by means of decoupled, indirect support, e.g. premiums for extensive grassland or pasture landvery practical proposals for helping the livestock farming sectors in the medium and long term to cope with the rising prices of raw materials used in animal feed; calls on the Commission, moreover, in view of the difficulties which certain types of livestock farm focusing on quality and sustainability encounter in gaining access to area-based premiums, to take into account their specific character and to propose a special support scheme to avoid excluding them from the new support system;
Amendment 599 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that direct payments should be madereserved only tofor active farmers; realises that, under the system of decoupled direct payments, each farmer who uses farmland for production or who tends it in order to maintain GAEC should receive direct payments; calls on the Commission therefore to devise a definition of ‘active farmer’ which the Member States can administer without additional administrative effort, while it should be ensured that traditional farming activities (full-time and various degrees of paonsiders that ‘active farmer’ means any natural or legal person whose principal activity is the exercise of an agricultural activity and/or is linked to an agricultural activity (agro- tourism, forestry, etc.); considers it necessary to specify that the definition of an active farmer should exclude cases in which the administrative costs would previously have been higher than the amount of support- time) are classified as active farming; hat certain beneficiaries would have been able to receive;
Amendment 613 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Considers it important that the CAP, like all other EU policies, be involved in the 2020 Strategy, and that it seems logical under such circumstances that the redistribution of direct aid take account of factors such as employment, the environment and combating climate change;
Amendment 625 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 20
Subheading before paragraph 20
III. Resource protection and environmental policy component
Amendment 634 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that better resource protection is an element in sustainable farming, which should involve separate support for environmental measures going beyond the requirements of Cross Compliance (CC), which already entail many environmental measures, and being geared to multiannual applications, as a result of which greater environmental benefits can be attained;
Amendment 659 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that resource protection should be directly linked to the granting of targeted direct payments in order to attain these environmental objectives to the maximum without the need to introduce new, bureauthat provide incentives to maximise environmental benefits and sustainability, without however creatic 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 lossng insurmountable practical hurdles for farmers or additional red tape for administrative authorities;
Amendment 666 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 692 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Rejects the option of a uniform flat- rate direct payment for the whole of the EU and recommends inclusion of the proposals already put forward in the European Parliament's own-initiative report on the future of the CAP after 2013, which provided much of the inspiration for the Commission Communication; considers that this system of direct payments should be applicable to all hectares of farmland and could combine the following three objectives; - the provision of basic aid to ensure not just the socio-economic viability of the competitive and multifunctional model for European agriculture, but also high- quality and wide-scale food safety, the supply of basic public goods, and agricultural activity that provides employment in rural areas, with safety in the workplace criteria obviously governing this employment; - the payment of supplementary aid for enforcing simple, best-practice obligations to protect the environment (protection of soil, water, biodiversity, etc.) and combat global warming adapted to the climate and natural features of each region; some of these already exist through the GAEC, but are not harmonised among Member States, such as mandatory plant cover, environmental set-aside, compulsory rotation, crop diversity (including protein crops), rates of soil organic matter, tillage restrictions, or the presence of hedges, permanent pasture, grazing land and extensively managed crops of great environmental interest; - the provision of specific aid to compensate for natural handicaps in order to maintain agricultural activity in mountain regions, environmentally- sensitive regions, regions within the Natura 2000 network and the outermost regions; this aid would supplement and complement second-pillar aid granted to less-favoured areas;
Amendment 706 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 721 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 735 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 752 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 768 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that direct payments are no longer justified without cross compliance (CC) and therefore that the CC systemonditions and therefore that a cross compliance system that is less complicated in practice and at administrative level (controls) should apply to all recipients of direct payments;
Amendment 789 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls, in view of the greater concentration of direct payments on resource protection and environmental measures, for a substantial reduction of the scope of CC; calls on the Commission to make significant progress in simplifying and harmonising rules on monitoringonsiders that attaching conditions to direct aid was a necessary first step towards the CAP taking the environment, public health, and animal health and welfare into account; considers, however, that this mechanism has raised a whole range of problems relating to administrative issues and acceptance by farmers in their work; thinks that this system should be simplified and adapted to what farmers are actually able to do; considers, finally, that any future response to environmental challenges and combating climate change will require the gradual and voluntary adoption of new technical production methods, the practical arrangements for which will be included in the conditions governing the distribution of first-pillar direct aid;
Amendment 801 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Considers that CC should be restricted to monitoring for compliance with fundamental and recognised standards and standards closely related to farming, which lend themselves to systematic monitoringthe monitoring of CC should be linked more to fundamental evaluation criteria, based on the obligation to achieve results and closely related to farming; believes that farmers themselves should be more involved in this monitoring, given their observation skills and practical experience, and this would have the effect of setting an example and motivating less efficient farmers in particular;
Amendment 805 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls for an end to disproportionate burdens imposed on livestock farming by CC, and particularly for a critical review of certain hygiene and animal marking standardsCC to be applied in a way that is adapted to the livestock sector which is currently in a very fragile situation as it has already made considerable efforts in terms of investment to upgrade the standards of buildings, installations and equipment;
Amendment 821 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Considers that the general market orientatimarket policy is one of the CAP should be maintained and that the general structure of market management instruments should likewise be retained; instruments which, through price management, plays an important role in determining farm incomes; acknowledges, however, that by virtue of the specific nature of agricultural supply and demand, agricultural markets, which are inherently very unstable, can cause serious problems for producers, processors and consumers which may go so far as to call into question the ability of agriculture to achieve its primary, strategic objective, food security; considers, therefore, that it is important to be able to take action to counter excessive price volatility in the context of the CAP and on world markets;
Amendment 852 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Emphasises that the CAP should incorporate a certain number of flexible and effective market instruments which act as a safety net, fixed at appropriate levels and available in the event of serious market disruption; points out that some of these instruments exist already, but can be adapted, whilst others can be created as needed; considers that, in view of the widely differing conditions in the individual sectors, differentiated sectoral solutions are preferable to across-the- board approaches;
Amendment 855 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Paragraph 33 b (new)
33b. Takes the view that these instruments should include specific supply- management instruments which, if employed fairly and on a non- discriminatory basis, can provide effective market management and prevent crises relating to overproduction, at zero cost to the Union budget;
Amendment 858 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Considers that, in view of the anticipatedincrease in environmental and climate dangers and the increased risk of epidemics and considerable price fluctuations on agricultural markets, additional risk prevention is of vital importance, particularly at individual farm levelhealth problems, risk management measures must be introduced to complement the range of measures intended to combat excessive price fluctuations; given the multiannual nature of such instruments, endorses the Commission’s proposal to include them among the second-pillar measures;
Amendment 868 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
Amendment 895 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
Amendment 915 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
Amendment 925 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 951 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
Amendment 970 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Calls on the Commission to examine the extent to which the role of producer groups or sectoral associations can be extended to all production sectors and incorporated into the risk preventionin managing markets and promoting quality can be extended to all production sectors; calls for measures of this kind to take particular account of products covered by quality-label schemes;
Amendment 987 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Takes the view, therefore, that the Commission should devise common rules on support from Member States for risk management systems, possibly by creating common rules in the common market organisation, in order to keep to a minimum any distortion of competition and trade; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to notify all measures to introduce risk management and to submit an appropriate impact assessrules governing the common market organisation; considers that these public rules must give producers more negotiating power vis-à- vis processors, increase market transparency (as regards production and sales volumes, stocks, etc.) and bring about certain changes in competition policy, which should be accepted, given that these professional market management arrangements with the legislative proposalll reduce budget expenditure;
Amendment 1007 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
Amendment 1058 #
Amendment 1084 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Takes the view that rural development policy must be complementary to, and consistent with, first pillar support, in order to promote strong and sustainable diversified European agriculture across the EU; considers that this rural development policy must contribute to structural developments and innovation in agriculture throughout the EU, in order to respond to the challenges in the fields of food security, the environment, climate change and employment;
Amendment 1102 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 b (new)
Paragraph 48 b (new)
Amendment 1109 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Advocates therefore introducing targeted measures, to be decidedmutually agreed upon by the Member States inand the second pillar, to attaCommission and forming priority objectives of the EU (2020 Strategy); observes that these measures should be applied in addition to the basic programmes for greening of direct payments in the first pillar and that a reduced national cofinancing rate of 25% should applyart of a predefined EU strategy, in the second pillar, to attain priority objectives of the EU (2020 Strategy);
Amendment 1121 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Emphasises that rural development policy must enable all the potentials of rural areas to be harnessed, by means of quality agricultural production focusing on direct sales, product promotion, supplying of local markets, diversification of biomass outlets (energy, green chemistry, bio-based materials, etc.), and able to create very place-specific jobs and multiple-service supply (ecotourism, educational farms, agri-tourism, etc.); considers also that this rural policy must serve to increase competitiveness, particularly in the convergence regions, by means of investment in the fields of the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products; believes, lastly, that this rural development policy must contribute to the management of natural resources (watercourses, soil, etc.) and help in the management and restoration of ecosystems, with this simultaneously providing a response to climate change;
Amendment 1132 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 b (new)
Paragraph 49 b (new)
49b. Insists that the measures under axis 1 of the rural development policy must better address the issues connected with the establishment of young farmers following the retirement of older farmers, with this concerning measures in connection with the establishing and modernisation of agricultural holdings; this approach should also consist of facilitating access to the farming profession for young people who are not from a farming background, and include the concept of gradual establishment, necessitating a review of aid eligibility conditions; believes, lastly, that implementation of this establishment support system should be mandatory in all the Member States;
Amendment 1133 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 c (new)
Paragraph 49 c (new)
49c. Proposes that agri-environmental measures should include arrangements for a 5 to 7 year ‘conversion’ agreement enabling farmers who themselves decide to move towards more sustainable production models and to innovate, to receive financial support to cover their taking on the financial risk resulting from the agronomic difficulties that could often arise in the years immediately following their change of farming practices; this aim of this incentive mechanism would be to help farmers better comply with the conditions for the granting of level two under the first pillar direct payments system;
Amendment 1137 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 d (new)
Paragraph 49 d (new)
49d. Suggests that support for consultancy, orchestration and training be incorporated into Axis 1 of the rural development policy to enable the dissemination of knowledge on innovative changes in farming practices towards more sustainable production systems, and to help innovative farmers pass on their experience;
Amendment 1143 #
2011/2051(INI)
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 ralls on the Commission to establish objective criteria for the definition of intermediate apprears to be appropriate; calls on the Commission to reta(currently under review) without those criteria leading the existing criteria for demarcation of disadvantagedo a new demarcation that could see the abrupt exclusion of currently eligible areas;
Amendment 1173 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Stresses at the same time, however, that rural structures differ widely in the Member States and therefore require different measures; calls therefore for flexibility to allow the Member States to adopt voluntary measures, the cofinancing rate for which should be based on the rates current at the time; points out that the cofinancing rate should continue to take account of the specific needs and circumstances of convergence regions in the post-2013 period;
Amendment 1181 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
Amendment 1203 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
Amendment 1252 #
2011/2051(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
Amendment 7 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to Parliament’s study of May 1998 on the meat sectors, factory farming and compound cattle feed, including cereal substitutes and oilseed cake in the European Union,
Amendment 8 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)
Citation 10 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 3 September 2002 on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on options to promote the cultivation of plant proteins in the EU1, ___________________ OJ C 272 E, 13.11.2003, p. 361.
Amendment 12 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, historically, this significant deficit in protein crop production goes back to previously established international trade agreements, especially with the United States, which allowed the EU to protect its cereal production and in return allowed duty-free imports of protein crops and oilseeds into the EU (GATT and 1992 Blair House Agreement). Protection of the cereal market in this way held the price of cereals on the Community market at almost the same level as that for soya cake, whilst elsewhere in the world the price was less than half this,
Amendment 27 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the high degree of imports of protein crops for animal feed has made the entire EU livestock sector extremely vulnerable to price volatility and trade distortionsextensive import of high- protein content feed components and protein crops contributed to the vulnerability of the entire EU livestock sector and increased price volatility, reflecting the consequences of increasingly liberalised agricultural markets,
Amendment 30 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, as a consequence of the small percentage of protein cropsleguminous fodder crops (lucerne, clover, sainfoin, etc.) and seed crops (pea, soja, lupin, horse bean, vetch, etc.) produced in the EU, research and development, training and the acquisition of practical experience in domestic protein crop production have been neglected, leading to a low level of innovation and regionally adapted seed production in the EU,
Amendment 46 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, in the context of climate change, the production of protein crops substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions through the assimilation and fixation of nitrogen in the soil (amounting to up to 100 kgN/ha per month) and the subsequent reduction in the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, which contains nitrous oxide whose warming potential is 310 times higher than carbon dioxide,
Amendment 48 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas, in terms of soil fertility, a higher percentage of protein crops cultivated on arable land as part of increased crop rotation systems and blocking plans contributes to more balanced nutrient storage, enhanced disease resistance and, better soil structure (including increased energy efficiency for soil treatment), less use of herbicides and greater biodiversity assisting pollination,
Amendment 63 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas using leguminous fodder crops or seed crops in place of imported proteins – primarily soya cake – may bring about significant changes in breeding methods and thus play a part in improving the quality of agricultural products (from standard products to certified products with alterations to specifications) and producers’ income,
Amendment 76 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas, instead of further encouraging cereal and maize monocultures for feed and energy production, the use of extended crop rotation systems, on-farm mixed cropping and grass-clover mixtures has greater environmental and agronomic benefits, since the growing of leguminous crops as part of a rotation system can prevent diseases and, regenerate the soil and have a beneficial effect on the population of pollinators,
Amendment 79 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas recent developments in food prices and the dramatic volatility of commodity prices have raised major concerns about the functioning of the European and global food supply chains, in which among other factors, imported animal feed has played a major role,
Amendment 81 #
2010/2111(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V a (new)
Recital V a (new)
Va. 1. whereas the European Union, in view of its very high protein supply dependency and the food security risk it is running, needs to establish a genuine strategic development plan for plant proteins in Europe; such an initiative calls for a willingness on the part of the EU and medium and long-term commitments that go well beyond the simple declarations of intent already seen in the past; the pertinence of this plan is evident when seen in an international context that anticipates worldwide demand for plant proteins increasing as a direct result of rising population growth and changes in eating habits, and that recognises the need to better manage natural resources and find common answers to the challenges posed by climate change; implementation of this plan requires from the European Union a global and consistent approach based on a reorientation of several of its policies: -the CAP must once again promote protein-rich leguminous fodder crops and seed crops. The forthcoming CAP reform should assist in this, thanks notably to part of the CAP subsidies being redeployed to provide a better return for services to the environment, -research, which is one of the priorities of the EU 2020 strategy, must focus more on the objective of reducing our protein dependency (new varieties, animal feed, etc.), -neighbourhood policy can also be mobilised through greater cooperation with countries, such as the Ukraine, that are on the EU’s doorstep and have significant production potential allowing for protein crops; the EU gains a double advantage from this additional option: geographically close leading to transport costs (by the Danube) and the environmental impact being less than for imports originating in countries lying further afield; a reduction in international pressure on the Amazon forest which is seriously threatened by the spread in soya farming supplying the world market in proteins, which is soaring primarily due to Chinese demand, -the EU’s external action via its trade policy must also be adapted to ensure that trade agreements accord with the need for the EU to be less dependent on outside markets for its plant protein supply,
Amendment 59 #
2010/2002(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Notes that, despite the claim that appropriations remain stable, assigned revenue is down by more than 25 % in 2011, and expresses its concern that market support is down by almost 22% (to EUR 3 491 million), and that appropriations for veterinary and plant protection measures show a fall of 7.8%, considering increased market volatility as well as vulnerability of agricultural activity to sanitary hazards;
Amendment 51 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) The European dairy sector has become subject to market logic and is suffering terribly from the deregulation advocated by the liberal model and the resulting price volatility. The unprecedented dairy crisis that Europe experienced in 2009 is a well-known example. It plunged European agriculture into total disarray, such was the fall in production prices, with Europe’s farmers no longer able to face up to their production costs and obtain a reasonable profit margin. There is thus a need to take a position in favour of regulating the dairy market in such a way that supply meets the demand and production prices rise again, and to establish a new balance in the supply chain for dairy products. To achieve this, regulatory intervention by the public authorities is justified in order to adjust production to market requirements in the medium and long term.
Amendment 54 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In October 2009, in light of this difficult market situation for milk, a High Level Expert Group on Milk ("“HLG"”) was set up with the purpose of discussing mid- term and long-term arrangements for the milk and milk products sector, given the expiry of dairy quotas in 2015. While respecting the outcome of the Health Check, the HLG was to work on a regulatory framework to be put in place, to contribute to stabilising the market and producers'’ income and enhance its transparency. Without a policy to stabilise production prices, strong price fluctuations lead to mechanisms that particularly benefit processors and increase their profit margins. As a result the price rises are passed on to consumers, whereas the producers’ falling prices only sporadically lead to a fall in consumer prices.
Amendment 62 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The HLG noted that the dairy producing and processing sectors are highly differentiated between Member States. There is also a highly variable situation between operators and types of operators within individual Member States. But concentration of supply is low in many cases with a resulting imbalance in bargaining power in the supply chain between farmers and dairies. This imbalance can lead to unfair commercial practices; in particular, farmers often do not know what price they will receive for their milk wheupon delivering becausey as the price is often fixed much later by dairies on a basis of the obtained added value, which, for non-cooperatives, is often outside of the farmer's control is generally outside farmers’ control, often whether or not they belong to a cooperative.
Amendment 80 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) TWhile the use of formalised, written contracts even containing basic elements made in advance of delivery is not widespread. However, they could increase awareness andmay somewhat help to reinforce the responsibility of the operators in the dairy chain and increase awareness of the need to better take into account the signals of the market, improve price transmission and adapt supply to demand, asit weill as help avoid certain unfair commercial practicesnot make it possible to face any further serious market crises that could once again affect the whole European dairy industry and especially producers, who are heavily in debt partly as a result of investing in modernisation.
Amendment 83 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) Without collective control of European production the contractual system advocated by the HLG will not, even if it is backed up by such other measures as strengthening producers’ bargaining power, the role of producer organisations and inter- professional/interbranch organisations, succeed in securing fair and stable milk prices for producers and consumers. We need to produce less milk while preserving the largest possible number of farms. Having numerous farms in Europe helps stabilise rural development and boosts employment.
Amendment 88 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In the absence ofThere needs to be EU legislation on such contracts, Member States may, within their own contract law systems, make the use of such contracts compulsory provided that in doing so EU law is respected and in particular that the proper functioning of the internal market and the common market organisation is respected. Given the diversity of situations across the EU in this context, in the interests of subsidiarity, such a decision should remain wit to ensure that they can be made compulsory in each Member States. Howev in order, to ensure appropriate minimum standards for such contracts and good funcavoid distortioning of the internal market and the common market organisation, some basic conditions for the use of such contracts should be laid down at EU level. Sincecompetition between Member States or regions. Even if some dairy co-operatives may have rules with similar effect in their statutes, in the interests of simplicity they should thennot be exempted from a requirement for contracts. In order to ensure that any such system is effective where intermediate parties collect milk from farmers to deliver to processors, it should apply equally in such a case.
Amendment 95 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to ensure the rational development ofcontrol the volume productioned and so to ensure a fair standard of living for dairy farmers, their bargaining power vis-à-vis processors should be strengthened, which should result in a fairer distribution of value-added along the supply chain. Therefore, in order to realise these objectives of the common agricultural policy, a provision should be adopted pursuant to Articles 42 and 43(2) TFEU to allow producer organisations constituted by dairy farmers or their associations to negotiate contract terms, including price, jointly for some or all of its members'’ production with a dairy. In order to maintain effective competition on the dairy market, this possibility should be subject to appropriate quantitative limits. Such producer organisations should therefore also be eligible for recognition under Article 122 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the conditions for approval of associations of producer organisations. However, it is understood that existing producer organisations should be recognised de facto by the new legislation.
Amendment 99 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) To stabilise the milk market as much as possible raw milk producers should be encouraged to invest in producer organisations, so as to greatly reduce the risk of losing the large number of independent dairy farms that would not be sufficiently attractive to private buyers, mainly because their production volume is too low.
Amendment 104 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11 c (new)
Recital 11 c (new)
(11c) It should be recalled that the 2001 Göteborg summit assigned to European agriculture the objective of sustainability, implying that the effectiveness of agriculture is not confined to its economic competitiveness but also takes into account its environmental, territorial and social effectiveness as well as the objective of equity.
Amendment 105 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Rules have been introduced at EU level for interbranch organisations in some sectors. TWhile these organisations can play useful roles in allowing dialogue between actors in the supply chain, and in promoting best practice and market transparency, inter-branch organisations are not market stabilisation agents. Indeed, experience from the fruit and vegetable sector shows that prices continue to fluctuate considerably owing to the meagre influence that producers are able to bring to bear within such structures. Only when they come together in an organisation of their own and are able to manage milk volumes upstream of processing is it possible for producers to improve their position within the dairy chain and ensure they receive a fair income. Such rules should equally be applied in the milk and milk products sector, along with the provisions clarifying the position of such organisations under competition law, whilst ensuring that they do not distort competition or the internal market or affect the good functioning of the common market organisation.
Amendment 110 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In order to follow developments in the market, the Commission needs to be aware, at any given time, of what is happening on milk market, and to that end needs timely information on volumes of raw milk delivered. Article 192 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides a basis for the exchange of information between the Member States and the Commission. However, provision should be made to ensure that processors deliver such information to the Member States on a regular basis. The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in respect of the scope, content, format and timing of such declarations.
Amendment 114 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The measures set out in this Regulation, are justified in the current economic circumstances of the dairy market and the structure of the supply chain. They should therefore be applied for a sufficiently long duration (both before and after the abolition of milk quotas) to allow them to have full effect. However, given their far-reaching nature, they should nevertheless be temporary in nature, and be subject to review to see how they have operated and whether they should continue to apply. This should be dealt with in Commission reports on the development of the milk market, and covering in particular potential incentives to encourage farmers to enter into joint production agreements, to be submitted by 30 June 2014 and 31 December0 June 20186.
Amendment 128 #
2010/0362(COD)
1a) The following Article 113da is inserted: Article 113da Specific provisions applicable to quality dairy products In order to improve and stabilise the operation of the market in dairy products with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and of the market in milk produced in mountainous and semi- mountainous areas, the Member State in question may lay down rules to bring volumes in line with demand, particularly by way of decisions taken by inter-branch organisations. Such rules shall be proportionate to the objective pursued and: (a) may only cover the regulation of supply and shall aim to bring the supply of the product in line with demand; (b) may not be made binding for more than five years of marketing; (c) shall not cause any damage to other producers in the Member State concerned or in the Community; (d) shall not relate to any transaction after the first marketing of the product concerned; (e) shall not allow for price fixing, including where prices are set for guidance or recommendation; (f) shall not render unavailable an excessive proportion of the product concerned that would otherwise be available; g) shall not have the effect of preventing an operator from starting production of the product concerned;
Amendment 137 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Regulation (EC) 1234/2007
Article 123 – paragraph 4 – point a
Article 123 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) are made up of representatives of economic activities linked to the production of, trade in, or processing of products of the milk and milk products sectoragricultural organisations, the dairy industry, cooperatives, distributors and consumer protection associations;
Amendment 230 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Article 1 – point 4 a (new)
Article 1 – point 4 a (new)
Regulation (EC) 1234/2007
Chapter II – Section II b (new)
Chapter II – Section II b (new)
Amendment 236 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Article 1 – point 8
Article 1 – point 8
Regulation (EC) 1234/2007
Article 184 – paragraph 10
Article 184 – paragraph 10
10) to the European Parliament and the Council by 30 June 2014 and by 31 December0 June 20186 on the development of the market situation in the milk and milk products sector and in particular on the operation of point (iiia) of the first paragraph of Article 122 and of Articles 123(4), 126a, 177a, 185e and 185f, covering in particular potential incentives to encourage farmers to enter into joint production agreements together with any appropriate proposals." The report shall be accompanied by any appropriate proposals.
Amendment 272 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Article 1 – point 9
Article 1 – point 9
Regulation (EC) 1234/2007
Article 185 f – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint i – indent 2
Article 185 f – paragraph 2 – point c – subpoint i – indent 2
Amendment 295 #
2010/0362(COD)
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Article 1 – point 9
Article 1 – point 9
Regulation (EC) 1234/2007
Article 185 f – paragraph 3
Article 185 f – paragraph 3
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a contract shall not be required wWhere raw milk is delivered by a farmer to a processor of raw milk where the processor is a co-operative of which the farmer is a member if its statutes, they should not be exempted from the obligation to conclude a contract even if the statutes of the co- operative contain provisions having similar effects as those set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2.
Amendment 50 #
2010/0354(COD)
Proposal for a regulation - amending act
Article 1 - point 2
Article 1 - point 2
Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007
Article 112 e - paragraph 2- point j
Article 112 e - paragraph 2- point j
(j) the place of farmingagricultural production and/or origin;
Amendment 72 #
2010/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 112 #
2010/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In order to help preserve the quality and reputation of products, the product specification may contain special measures to protect natural resources and/or the countryside in the areas of production, or to improve animal welfare.
Amendment 153 #
2010/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A name shall be eligible for registration as a traditional speciality guaranteed where it describes a specific processed product that:
Amendment 178 #
2010/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The Member States that already have optional terms may retain more restrictive national measures.
Amendment 209 #
2010/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Without prejudice to specific provisions on producer organisations and inter-branch organisations as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, a group or, where appropriate, an inter-branch organisation is entitled to:
Amendment 222 #
2010/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) develop, under the supervision of the Member State concerned, management- of-supply measures, on the understanding that these regulatory measures shall not harm competition in the internal market, constitute a barrier for new entrants on the market, or lead to small producers being adversely affected.
Amendment 229 #
2010/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 2
Article 43 – paragraph 2
2. Operators preparing and storing a traditional speciality, protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication or who places such traditional speciality guaranteed, protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication on the market shall also be subject to the system of controls as referred to in Chapter I of this Title, in cases where these controls are not carried out by the public authorities in the Member State.
Amendment 260 #
2010/0353(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annexe II – third column – second row
Annexe II – third column – second row
Articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, Article 11
Amendment 75 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 42, Article 43(2) and Article 43(2)349 thereof,
Amendment 77 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4a (new)
Recital 4a (new)
(4a) In order to avoid undermining the efforts to achieve the objectives of the POSEI programmes, the Commission should carry out impact assessments each time an international trade agreement is negotiated which may pose a threat to the sectors supported under the POSEI programmes. Once these impact assessments or prior evaluations have been carried out, the Commission should forward the findings to the European Parliament, the Council and the elected departmental or regional authorities in the outermost regions before the international agreements in question are concluded.
Amendment 79 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In order to achieve in an effective manner the lowering of prices in the outermost regions andby mitigating the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, all the while maintaining the competitiveness of EUtheir products, aid should be granted for the supply of Community products to the outermost regions. Such aid should take account of the additional cost of transportarising from the transportation of the products in question to these regions and the cost of exports to third countries and, in the case of agricultural inputs and products intended for processing, the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, specifically insularity and small surface areas.
Amendment 84 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Given that rice constitutes a staple of the diet of Réunion and that rice processing and polishing industries have been established there for many years, and since the island does not produce sufficient quantities of rice to meet local requirements, the import of this product to the island should continue to be exempt from any form of import tax.
Amendment 95 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Support for the production of cow’s milk in Madeira and Réunion has not been sufficient to maintain the balance between domestic and external supply, chiefly because of the serious structural difficulties affecting the sector and its poor capacity toroblems in adapting to new economic environments. Consequently, authorisation to produce UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder of EU origin should continue, in order to cover local consumption more fully. In order to inform the consumer correctly, it should be made compulsory to indicate the method by which UHT milk is reconstituted using milk powder on the sales labelling, provided that this does not pose an obstacle to the collection and marketing of all locally produced milk, or hamper efforts to promote the expansion of local production, the medium-term aim being to secure, for Réunion, self-sufficiency in milk production. In order to inform the consumer correctly, it should be made compulsory to indicate the method by which UHT milk is reconstituted using milk powder on the sales labelling. This provision should also be applicable in Martinique, French Guiana and Guadeloupe, should France make such a request citing the wish of local stakeholders to be covered by it and their ability to develop the milk sector.
Amendment 102 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
b) preservation and development of agricultural activities in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and the sale of local producsecuring the long-term future and development of the livestock and crop diversification sectors in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and the sale of local products, while significantly improving the local population’s degree of self-sufficiency by increasing domestic production and reducing imports.
Amendment 104 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point ba (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point ba (new)
ba) maintaining the development and strengthening the competitiveness of traditional agricultural activities in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and marketing of local crops and products, whilst ensuring that the revenue generated from the products and by-products of traditional agricultural sectors is shared fairly between producers, processors and distributors.
Amendment 105 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2a (new)
2a. The objectives set out in paragraph 1 must be achieved by taking a holistic approach to sustainable development which seeks both to safeguard the environment and to guarantee producers and farmers a decent income. This must also involve measures to provide farmers and processors with ongoing training in order to foster the development of high- quality, productive and sustainable agricultural sectors.
Amendment 106 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. The POSEI programmes shall be established atby the geographical level which the Member State concerned deems most appropriate. It shall be prepared by the competentauthority or authorities designated by the said Member State, which shall submit it to the Commission for approval in accordance with Article 6 after the competent authorities and organisations at the appropriate regional level have been consulted concerned, at the geographical level deemed most appropriate.
Amendment 107 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2a (new)
2a. At the geographical level deemed most appropriate, the competent departmental or regional authorities, the relevant organisations and the representative and/or professional organisations involved must be consulted on the draft POSEI programmes before they are submitted to the Commission for approval.
Amendment 108 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. A single POSEI programme may be submitted for each Member State in respect of its outermost regionThe Member States shall submit to the Commission and to all the relevant organisations a clear organisational chart relating to the process of drawing up POSEI programmes.
Amendment 109 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Measures taken under POSEI programmes must comply with European Union law and be consistent with other EU policies and with the measures taken under such policies, without prejudice to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which grants the outermost regions special status with a view to fostering their development and their integration on a fair basis into the Union through the implementation of specific programmes and instruments tailored to their situation.
Amendment 110 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall submit a draft POSEI programme to the Commission in the light of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3). The draft programme shall be deemed admissible by the Commission only if it has been notified to the leaders of the elected departmental or regional authorities.
Amendment 111 #
2010/0256(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Depending on the annual evaluation of the implementation of measures included in the POSEI programmes, the Member States may, after consulting the elected departmental or regional authorities, submit to the Commission proposals for amendments thereto within the context of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3), to bring them more into line with the requirements of the outermost regions and the strategy proposed. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the uniform measures for the submission of proposals for amendments to the programme.
Amendment 17 #
2010/0208(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Under this set of legislation, GMOs for cultivation shall undergo an individual risk assessment before being authorised to be placed on the Union market, taking into account, in accordance with Annex II of Directive 2001/18/EC, the direct, indirect, immediate and delayed effects, as well as the cumulative long-term effects, on human health and the environment. The aim of this authorisation procedure is to ensure a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market.
Amendment 31 #
2010/0208(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Member States should therefore be authorised to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs in all or part of their territory, and respectively amend those measures as they deem appropriate, at all stages of the authorisation, re-authorisation or withdrawal from the market of the concerned GMOs. This choice on the part of the Member States is intimately linked to their power to manage and enhance their territory, with its immense variety of ecosystems whose natural production systems must be preserved for the long term. This should apply as well to genetically modified varieties of seed and plant propagating material which are placed on the market in accordance with relevant legislation on the marketing of seeds and plant propagating material and, in particular, in accordance with Directives 2002/53/EC and 2002/55/EC. Measures should refer to the cultivation of GMOs only and not to the free circulation and import of genetically modified seeds and plant propagating material, as or in products, and of the products of their harvest. Similarly they should not affect the cultivation of non genetically modified varieties of seed and plant propagating material in which adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of EU authorised GMOs are found.
Amendment 33 #
2010/0208(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) According to the legal framework for the authorisation of GMOs, the level of protection of human/animal health and of the environment chosen in the EU cannot be revised by a Member State and this situation must not be altered. However Member States may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs in all or part of their territory on the basis of grounds relating to the public interest other than those already addressed by the harmonised set of EU rules which already provide for procedures to take into account the risks that a GMO for cultivation may pose on health and the environment. Such measures may be justified on the basis of: - environmental grounds different and complementary to those which have been the subject of an evaluation pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC, and providing scientific data clearly showing the importance of conserving the receiving environments; - grounds supporting the protection and development of agricultural practices which offer the best combination of production with ecosystem sustainability; - grounds relating to the appearance of resistance or invasive plants; - grounds suggesting that there are agricultural practices which present an alternative to GMO cultivation and yield more beneficial results in technical, economic and environmental terms. Those measures should furthermore be in conformity with the Treaties, in particular as regards the principle of non discrimination between national and non national products and Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as with the relevant international obligations of the Union, notably in the context of the World Trade Organisation.
Amendment 52 #
2010/0208(COD)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 - point 1
Article 1 - point 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 1 - point a
Article 26 b – paragraph 1 - point a
a) those measures are based on grounds other thancomplementary to and/or different from those related to the assessment of the adverse effect on health and environment which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs; including: - additional environmental grounds which have not been subject to an evaluation pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC; - grounds justifying the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer the best combination of production with ecosystem sustainability; - grounds relating to the appearance of resistance or invasive plants; - grounds relating to the existence of alternative practices to GMO cultivation and with better technical, economic and environmental performance.
Amendment 7 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
- having regard to the recommendations of the International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD),
Amendment 11 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0060/2010) on EU agriculture and climate change,
Amendment 23 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, to date, the Common Agricultural Policy's goals, has mset its goals with regard toout in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are directed at achieving better productivity in the food chain, contributing toagriculture, ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, market stabilisationing markets and the provision ofding food supplies to EU consumers at reasonable prices,; whereas at present not all these goals are being fully achieved, given that it has not yet been possible to achieve income parity in agriculture or to stabilise agricultural markets which have become extremely volatile, with the result that the food security goal has been jeopardised;
Amendment 102 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the EU must continue to ensure food security for its citizens as well as help feednd contribute more effectively to the world food balance through closer cooperation between rich and poor countries and through support that will make it possible to deal with emergencies and, above all, contribute to the development of all agricultural systems, especially in the world’'s poormost disadvantaged regions; whereas the number of hungry people now exceeds 1 billion and in the European Union today there are over 40 million poor people who do not have enough to eat,
Amendment 125 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the CAP has undergone radical reforms over the last 25 years, in particular bringing about a fundamental shift from production support to producer support, ending regular intervention buying and the dumping of European surpluses on world markets and making the CAP and EU farmers more market-oriented; stresses, however, that these reforms have not fundamentally altered agriculture's dominant development model, which was initiated in the 1960s, when the CAP was launched;
Amendment 132 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that CAP market instruments are now used as safety nets, in the latest CAP reforms, market instruments have generally been reduced to mere safety nets set at extremely low levels and supposed to help manage market volatility andin order to ensure a certain degree of stability and that, moreover, since the adoption of decoupled Single Farm Payments there has been a resolute move away from trade-distorting measures in line with WTO requirements;
Amendment 140 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the factNotes that the 2003 CAP reform and the 2008 Health Check haves initiated in 1992 and 1999 and, in particular, that initiated in 2003, which was reviewed during the Health Check and introduced the principle of decoupling, were all intended to allowed EU farmers to better respond and react to market signals and conditions;
Amendment 146 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that rural development is now an integral part of the CAP architecture with its focus on rural communities, improving the environment, modernising and restructuring agriculture and improving product marketing and competitiveness, as well as on the new challenges addressed by the Health Check, namely global warming, renewable energies, water management and biodiversity;
Amendment 158 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the recognition of the multi- functional role of farmers in delivering public goods such as preserving our environment, high-quality food production, good animal husbandry, shaping and improving the diversity and quality of valued landscapes in the EU, and the move to more sustainable farming practices by not only meeting the basic requirements for maintenance of the land in a G(organic production, precision farming, etc.); notes that this multi-functional role is reflected in cross-compliance criteria governing the disbursement of first-pillar direct aid, which are based on compliance with statutory requirements and good Aagricultural and Eenvironmental Condition (GAEC) but also achieving even higher standards through practice, but also in second-pillar measures coming mainly under Axis 2 (agri- environmental schemes, precision farming and organic production; measures);
Amendment 172 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that food security remains the central challenge for EU agriculture in the EU and all around the world, as the world population is predicted to grow from 6 to 9 billion by 2050 and demand for food will double by 2050 according to the FAO (especially in emerging economies such as China or India);
Amendment 215 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recognises the importance of reinforcing the progress already made to preserve biodiversity and protect the environmentat farming has already made considerable progress in cutting its greenhouse gas emissions and, in general, addressing environmental problems (management of water resources, soil, biodiversity, biomass, etc.), but maintains that those efforts need to be continued in order to gear production methods to a more sustainable form of development that is efficient in environmental and social, as well as economic, terms;
Amendment 249 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is of the opinion that a strong European Common Agricultural Policy is needed to ensure that EU farmers remainthat serves the interests of all European farmers is essential; takes the view that that policy should ensure that European farming is sustainable and should enable it to play it part in the European economy and competitive on the world market against well subsidised trading partners; believes thattrading partners who are well subsidised and/or not necessarily subject to the same production conditions as regards social, environmental and animal-welfare requirements; believes that, for strategic reasons, the EU cannot afford to rely on other parts of the world to provide for European food security in the context of climate change, political instability in certain regions of the world and potential outbreaks of diseases or other events potentially detrimental to production capacity;
Amendment 265 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Considers that that policy should ensure the coexistence of: – high-added-value farming with high- quality primary and processed products giving it a strong position on world markets; – farming open to regional markets; – farming geared to local markets, with it being pointed out that some of the farmers involved are small farmers with limited incomes who, were they to abandon farming, would, owing to their age, qualifications or lifestyle choices, have great difficulty in finding work outside farming, particularly at a time of recession and high unemployment;
Amendment 268 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that EU agriculture remains a central sector of the EU economy, making an important contribution to EU GDP and jobs both directly and indirectly through the multiplier effect on both the upstream and downstream food and drink industry market; believes, therefore, that a strong EU agricultureal policy is at the very heart of a successful export-led EU food and drink industrydiversified, sustainable and efficient farming industry generating high-quality primary and processed products for both short and longer distribution channels, coupled with a food and drink industry that accounts for a substantial proportion of EU exports;
Amendment 344 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Points out that, although the cross- compliance system making the granting of direct aid subject to compliance with statutory requirements and the maintenance of farmland in good agricultural and environmental condition has been necessary, it is no longer the most appropriate means of maximising the provision of eco-system services by farmers and meeting new environmental challenges; moreover, the introduction of cross-compliance has raised a whole range of problems relating to administrative issues and acceptance by farmers, who had the impression that they were losing a degree of freedom in their work;
Amendment 365 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Insists that EU agriculture must remain competitive against fierce competition from trade partners who are well- subsidised trade partnerand/or not always subject to the same production conditions, in particular as regards social, environmental and animal welfare standards; therefore believes that competitivenessproductivity enhancement should still be a fundamental objective of the CAP post- 2013 to ensure that the EU has the raw materials to produce high- value diversified European food products and they continue to win a greater share of the world market, as well as ensuring fair traderemuneration for farmers;
Amendment 389 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Insists that the maintenance of farming activity across the whole of Europe is fundamental to maintain diverse and local food production and prevent the threat of land abandonment across EU territoryjobs and social and economic conditions in rural areas, diverse and local food production and the preservation of the environment, the rural space and landscapes;
Amendment 401 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls for measures based on public-law rules to be taken to strengthen producers' and producer organisations' bargaining power vis-à-vis downstream industries in order to better adapt supply to demand, create and more evenly distribute added value and improve the functioning of the food supply-chain with greater transparency of food prices and action to address unfair commercial practices; considers it important, in this connection, to strengthen inter-branch organisations;
Amendment 410 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Believes that there has to be a minimum safety net within the future framework of the CAP in order to manage extreme market price volatility and provide rapid and efficient responses to economic crises arising in the sectorn effective and flexible intervention mechanism to respond to farming crises caused by extreme market price volatility;
Amendment 449 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Believes that agriculture has a leading role to play in tackling climate change by reducing GHG emissions, increasing carbon sequestration capacity and developing and using more renewable energy sources and bio-based materials; believes that climate considerations should be integrated across CAP measures where appropriate;
Amendment 461 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Considers that production efficiency is fundamental to more sustainable management of scarce resources and that farmers should innovate in their technical production methods by using the latest financial, scientific and technical tools to help meet the growing demand for food in a more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner;
Amendment 498 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Considers that existing agricultural policy architecture suffers from a lack of intelligibility and coherence which make it difficult to understand for farmers and citizens in general; consideration should therefore be given to reorganising the two pillars by combining the axis 2 measures under the rural development pillar (agri- environmental measures) with direct aid under the first pillar, since their content increasingly overlaps; overall support for the two pillars should finally make it possible to promote a new kind of agricultural development, taking into account all the new challenges posed by climate change, water and soil management, biodiversity and renewable energies;
Amendment 545 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Insists that the CAP should not be renationalised and therefore believes that core direct support should remain fully financed by the EU budget, hence rejecting any further co-financing which could harm fair competition within the EU Single Market; considers that, because the new challenges posed by climate change, water, biodiversity and renewable energies represent future spending of interest and added value to the Community, they should be fully financed from the Union budget;
Amendment 557 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 – point 1
Paragraph 48 – point 1
1) Believes that in order to reduce the disparities in the distribution of direct support funds between Member States, the hectare basis alone will not be sufficient and, therefore, calls for, that this direct support should be geared more towards the environment and employment and that it is therefore recommended to use additional objective criteria such as a purchasing power coefficient to be used to achieve an overall more balanced distribution between the Member States;
Amendment 562 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 – point 1
Paragraph 48 – point 1
1) Believes that in order to reduce the disparities in the distribution of direct support funds between Member States, the hectare basis alone will not be sufficient and, therefore, calls for additional objective criteria such as a purchasing power coefficient to be used to achieve an overall balanced distribution; believes that a single per hectare premium is also unsatisfactory for the purposes of fully exploiting agriculture Europe-wide.
Amendment 619 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Considers that there should be no return to coupled payments as a guiding principle of the CAP; however, given the move from a historical to an area support model, takes the view that a limited margin for flexibility should be left to Member States to respond to the specific needs of their territory, in the form of capped coupled payments for vulnerable grasslandproducts, including in the area of extensive grass-regenerating livestock abreaseding, in compliance with WTO requirements;
Amendment 657 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56 a (new)
Paragraph 56 a (new)
Amendment 664 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56 b (new)
Paragraph 56 b (new)
56b. Takes the view that the common agricultural policy must enable a healthier diet to be made available to all consumers, particularly the poorest among them, on the basis of a more varied, accessibly priced range of products; in order to combat poverty and improve health, aid programmes for the poorest in society must be continued, and programmes to boost consumption of fruit and vegetables in schools extended;
Amendment 670 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
57. Believes that an EU-funded top-up direct area payment should be made available to farmers through simple contracts rewarding them for reducing their carbon emissions per unit of production and increasing their sequestration of carbon in the soil and through the production of biomass that can be used in the production of long-lasting agromaterials;; notes that this would have the double benefit of making EU agriculture more environmentally and economically sustainable through improved efficiency and would also ensure that farmers can financially benefit from increased carbon sequestration on their land and put them on the same footing as other industries which are in the EU ETS; calls for clear and measurable criteria and targets to be defined appropriately to allow these payments to be implemented as soon as possible;
Amendment 706 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Believes that the CAP needs to further incentivise biodiversity and environmental protection measures by providing the opportunity for the vast majority of agricultural land to be covered by agri- environmental schemes to reward farmers for the delivery of additional eco-system services, while other measures beneficial to the environment such as organicand by encouraging these farmers to turn to new, more sustainable, lower-input production models such as organic, integrated-agriculture and conservation-agriculture farming projects, the sustainable use of forests, water and soil, and all projects that form part of the development of high -natural -value farming should also be encouraged; considers that all these rural development measures should remain co-financed, with an increased budget if necessary;
Amendment 712 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 a (new)
Paragraph 59 a (new)
59a. Points out that the common agricultural policy must cover all types of territory, including the most vulnerable areas, particularly those with natural and geographical handicaps, and areas of higher activity, up to and including peri- urban areas; in all of these areas agriculture is essential as a contribution to security of food supply, environmental protection, employment and social life;
Amendment 721 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Believes that 'green growth' should be at the heart of a new rural development strategy focussing on creating new green jobs through: the development of biomass, biowaste, biogas and small-scale renewable energy production as well as encouraging the production of second-generation biofuels, agrimaterials and green- chemistry products, investing in modernisation and innovation as well as new research and development techniques for adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, providing training and advice to farmers for applying new techniques and to assist young farmers entering the industry, and adding value to high-quality products through promotion and marketing measures;
Amendment 748 #
2009/2236(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Insists that, to complement market measures, there is an urgent need to strengthen producers'the position in the food chain through a range of actions to addressof producers and their trade organisations, including multi-sector organisations, through a range of actions, some of which must be taken by the public authorities and seek to enhance producers' negotiating power, transparency, contractual relationships and commercial practices; takes the view that possible adjustments to competition rules should also be investigated to allow producer organisations to grow in scale and size, equipping them with the power to stand up to major retailers and processors;
Amendment 28 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas animal welfare must not be neglected, as it may constitute a comparative advantage for the European Union on condition, however, that the Union ensures, in an open market, that all animals and meat imported from third countries meet the same welfare requirements as apply within the Union,
Amendment 32 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas at the time of the assessment and review of the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 the European Union must commit itself to securing recognition of animal welfare standards in the agricultural section of the next WTO Agreement, before the final conclusion of a general agreement,
Amendment 38 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas at the time of this review of the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006- 2010 and on the eve of the first reflections on the CAP for the period after 2013, the European Union must adopt a balanced position on welfare, taking into account the economic consequences in terms of additional costs for livestock producers, linked to adequate income support for them through policy on prices and markets and/or direct aid,
Amendment 81 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets, nonetheless, that more has not been done to adopt a proposal for new rules on animal transport and the associated issue of developing a satellite system to monitor such transport, and urges the Commission, in the time still remaining before the action plan expires, to take the initiativeminds the Commission how important it is to have recent scientific data and research on animal transport (which are still lacking), and to have the assessment report on the current rules on animal transport which is scheduled for 2011, before considering new recommendations in this field;
Amendment 105 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is particularly concerned that, despite the clear recommendations and conclusions issued by the European Food 1 OJ L 47, 18.2.2009, p. 5-13. Safety Authority (EFSA) in this regard, manyDeplores the fact that, despite the major progress observed during the official checks performed, some pig farmers in Europe are violating the provisions of Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, and calls on the Commission, therefore, to devise without delay a strategy to increase compliance with this Directive;
Amendment 114 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Commission likewise to ensure that the ban on systems which lack cages with nests for laying hens, which enters into force in 2012, is genuinely complied with, as imports of eggs into the EU must likewise comply with the production conditions imposed on European producers;
Amendment 154 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission, in the light of Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to submit no later than 2012 a proposal for general animal welfare legislation for the EU which, on the basis of the available science, reliable, practical and measurable criteria and proven experience, should contribute to a common understanding of the concept of animal welfare and the fundamental conditions applicable;
Amendment 159 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that this general animal welfare legislation, which should be accompanied by individual legal acts concerning specific species of animal, must include suitable guidelines on responsible keeping of animals, a common system for monitoring and to gather comparable data, as well as requirements relating to basic know-how on the part of handlers of animals and provisions establishing the particular responsibilities of animal owners;
Amendment 181 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the debate concerning various possible animal welfare labelling schemes in the aforementioned Commission communication of 28 October 2009, and stresses that it is important that consumers in the European Union should receive adequate information to enable them to make well-informed choices in this regard as well as in others;
Amendment 199 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 248 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Considers that, before drafting new legislation, existing rules – whether general or specific – should be enforced properly; this concerns the ban on battery cages for hens, the rules on pigs and rules on animal transport and the rearing of geese and ducks, including for forced feeding;
Amendment 357 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Member States to ensure that violations of EU animal welfare rules result in effective penalties, and that in each individual case these penalties are accompanied by comprehensive guidance and advice from the competent authorities;
Amendment 418 #
2009/2202(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls for an assessment and further development of the Animal Welfare Quality Project, particularly as regards incentives for farmers and producers to use the new indicators, as much work remains to be done to prepare the new indicators for practical applicationnew, reliable, practical and measurable indicators, with the proviso that the latter must not constitute obstacles liable to penalise them by making them less competitive;
Amendment 18 #
2009/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas agriculture, as the main source of twohree major GHGs (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane), is contributing to climate change while also being very vulnerable to its adverse impact,
Amendment 206 #
2009/2157(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Takes the view that the ‘new challenges’ of climate change, water management, renewable energies and biodiversity, to which must be added soil degradation, were not fully taken on board at the time of the CAP Health Check, and that they should be addressed through all the CAP instruments, not just the ‘second- pillar’ subsidies;
Amendment 7 #
2009/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the EU quality policy, based on farmers' know-how as regards production methods and sustainable development practices geared to each region, can bring about increased competitiveness and added value to the economy of Europe's regions; that quality production is often the only chance for many rural areas with limited production alternatives; further considers quality as an engine for product diversity;
Amendment 14 #
2009/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that, in an increasingly open market, it is essential that, in the WTO negotiations, the EU uphold the principle of quality products being protected and enjoying effective protection through the intellectual property safeguard arrangements;
Amendment 39 #
2009/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is in favour of allowing stakeholders to develop marketing standards on their own, within trade associations and organisations such as the CEN (European Committee on Standardisation); however these standards should only be supplementary and must not conflict with European rules;
Amendment 44 #
2009/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Supports the establishment of tools for the collective promotion and publicising of small traditional, local and artisanal products linked to specific areas and bearing a geographical name, for which PDO/PGI access procedures would be too cumbersome and costly;
Amendment 73 #
2009/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 76 #
2009/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Considers that products of mountain areas and GMO-free areas should be protected; calls on the Commission, therefore, to make every possible effort to ensure that such areas are appropriately protected;
Amendment 143 #
2009/2105(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Is concerned at the fact that private organic labels are developing for non- food products, outside the scope of any legislation, and considers that this fast- expanding sector would require an extension of Community legislation;
Amendment 38 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Title
Title
Proposal for a Council regulation on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter and killing
Amendment 93 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – sub-paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – sub-paragraph 2
Amendment 137 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10
Article 10
Amendment 195 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In the case of slaughtermen coming under the aegis of religious organisations, the competent authority shall delegate the organisation of training courses, the final examination and the issuing of certificates of competence to the religious bodies which have the necessary expertise, staff and equipment and are officially recognised by the Member State concerned.
Amendment 231 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – point 3.3
Annex II – point 3.3
3.3 Systems restraining bovine animals by inversion or any unnatural position shall not be used. A derogation shall be granted for the slaughter of animals in accordance with religious rites.
Amendment 1 #
2008/0149(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) As a consequence, it is necessary to adopt a specific financing facility, complementary to existing development instruments and the Humanitarian Aid Instrument, to adopt. That facility should form part of an overall development strategy with precise objectives and adequate resources, ensuring coherence between the facility and the existing aid provided under the EU’s short-, medium- and long-term instruments. The facility should also allow urgent and supplementary measures to be adopted that address rapidly the consequences in developing countries of the present soaring food prices situation. It should also, in conjunction with existing programmes, make it possible to provide much more substantial, priority aid, through resources distributed over time, to sustainable development of agriculture and agricultural production in the poorest countries with a view to increasing their food supply and reducing their food dependence. The facility should take into consideration the recent recommendations by the United Nations drawn from the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) study, particularly on seeking involvement by local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and producer organisations in implementing sustainable development projects based on the optimum use of local resources.
Amendment 2 #
2008/0149(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The measures adopted with this facility should help developing countries to boost agricultural productivity in the next seasons, to respond rapidly to immediate needs of the countries and their population and to take initial steps needed to prevent as far as possible further food insecurity situations, and also contribute to mitigating the effects of the high food prices globally, to the benefit of the poorest people but also of the European consumers and farmers. It will only be possible to mitigate the effects of high global food prices if all the countries in the world - and the rich countries having a major responsibility - consider together the planet’s food balance and act to stabilise global prices so that all the world’s regions are able to develop their agriculture and meet the needs of their populations. This objective requires intelligent regulation of the agricultural economy and the compiling of security food stocks to deal with emergencies (natural disasters, etc.). Furthermore, the Union should promote regional integration among developing countries, which, over and above any geopolitical interest, has the advantage of taking a first step towards the emergence of agricultural policies along the lines of what the Community undertook over fifty years ago. Community assistance should, finally, be made dependent on fulfilment of minimum environmental conditions and compliance with the basic Conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
Amendment 3 #
2008/0149(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The Commission shall adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1. They shall finance international initiatives supporting the purpose and objectives of this Regulation and which are implemented through regional and global public or private International Organisations in conjunction with local producer organisations. It shall inform the European Parliament and the Council thereof. The European Parliament shall thus be regularly informed on the implementation of the facility through meetings arranged at the Commission's initiative, and then through an initial written interim report in June 2009. The European Parliament shall have a right of veto over expenditure.
Amendment 4 #
2008/0149(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5
Article 1 – paragraph 5
5. International Organisations, including Regional Organisations, whether public or private, such as NGOs or local banks (hereafter ‘International Organisations’), will be selected on the basis of their capacity to deliver a speedyily the most cost- effective and high est-quality response possible with the minimum of administrative bureaucracy to meeto the specific needs of the targeted Developing Countries in relation to the objectives of this Regulation.
Amendment 5 #
2008/0149(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) measures to improve access to agricultural inputs and services, including fertilizers and seedsthe infrastructure and means of production of the poorest small-scale farmers to support local and sustainable development, i.e.: - access to agricultural inputs (tailored to the optimum use of local resources) and services (extension, vocational training), - access to land, water and financing (microcredits), - the collective organisation of producers (for production and setting up local markets and local seed banks), - crop storage;
Amendment 21 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In order to provide additional incentives to beneficiaries for the uptake of operations related to the new priorities, the possibility to establish higher100%-EARDF- funded amounts and rates of support for such operations should be given.
Amendment 46 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 16 a – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 a – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The European Union and the Member States shall, with a view to facilitating the pooling and transfer of experience, set up a European network to record all innovative operations that are in keeping with the priorities laid down in paragraph 1.
Amendment 47 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 16 a – paragraph 2
Article 16 a – paragraph 2
2. From 1 January 2010, for types of operations referred to in paragraph 1, the aid intensity rates fixed in Annex I may be increased by 10 percentage points100%-EARDF-funded.
Amendment 223 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Member States should be allowed to use up to 10% of their ceilings for granting specific support in clearly defined cases. Such support should allow Member States to address environmental issues and improve the quality and marketing of agricultural products. Specific support should also be available to buffer the consequences of the phasing-out of milk quotas and the decoupling of support in particularly sensitive sectors. Given the growing importance of an effective management of risks Member States should be given the option to financially contribute to the premiums farmers pay for crop insurance as well as to the financing of financial compensation of certain economic losses in case of animal or plant diseases. With a view to respect the Community’s international obligations the resources that could be used for any coupled support measures should be limited at an appropriate level. The conditions applicable to the financial contributions to crop insurance and animal or plant disease related compensation should be established accordingly.
Amendment 257 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that all agricultural land, especially land which is no longer used for production purposes, is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition. Member States shall define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition on the basis of the framework set up in Annex III, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic condition, ecosystems, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices, and farm structures. These minimum requirements shall be adapted to each situation and chosen on the basis of their better agronomic and environmental effectiveness (as recognised by scientific research and practical experience). In this manner, the European Union will be gradually induced into an overall rethink of the methods of production employed in its agriculture, thereby making this ecologically sustainable and economically viable.
Amendment 281 #
Amendment 285 #
Amendment 292 #
Amendment 299 #
Amendment 316 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter a
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter a
(a) amounts between EUR 1050 000 and 19974 999, by 34 percentage points,
Amendment 320 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – letter b
(b) amounts betweenof EUR 20075 000 and 299 999or more, by 68 percentage points,
Amendment 324 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 394 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The advisory activity shall cover at least the statutory management requirements and the good agricultural and environmental condition referred to in Chapter 1. and dissemination of production methods that are economically efficient, ecologically sustainable and more economical in terms of natural resources and production costs (energy and inputs, etc.).
Amendment 396 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall give priority to the farmers who receive more that EUR 15 000 of direct payments per yearensure that all farmers can participate in this advisory system on a voluntary basis.
Amendment 544 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States may decide by 1 August 2009 at the latest to useshall use with effect from 2010 up to 10% of their national ceilings referred to in Article 41 to grant support to farmers:. This measure shall be optional in Member States which have opted previously for regional implementation of the single payment scheme, or which plan to do so shortly, pursuant to Articles 47 and 48, or which plan to revise payment entitlements pursuant to Article 49. This provision shall not apply in the new Member States.
Amendment 552 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – letter a – point i
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – letter a – point i
(i) specific types of farming whichbased on more economical and sustainable technical procedures, which enhance all aspects of ecosystems and are important for the protection or enhancement of the environment (organic farming, soil conservation, grass regeneration, etc.),
Amendment 111 #
2008/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – point (e)
Article 20 – point (e)
(e) wine as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, all categories of aromatised wines, as defined by Regulation (EC) No 1601/1991, and similar products obtained from fruits other than grapes, cider, perry, beer, and spirits as defined in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No. […] of […] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89. The Commission shall produce a report after [five years of the entry into force of this Regulation] concerning the application of Article 19 on these products and may accompany this report by specific measures determining the rules for labelling ingredients. Those measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, by supplementing it shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 49(3);
Amendment 183 #
2008/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 214 #
2008/0028(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV – second indent
Annex IV – second indent
- processed products which the only processing they have been subjected to is smoking or maturing, and fruits and vegetables which have been dried and possibly rehydrated by adding water, and that comprise a single ingredient or category of ingredients;
Amendment 58 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Points to the need for risk categorisation also to cover issues relating to stocking density; points out that high stocking densities on large farms using breeding methods since the same rules cannot be applied to extensive and intensive ('industrial') breeding methods are usually detrimental to the welfare of the; notes that the greater density of animals aund, furthermore, significantly increase theer the latter methods generates greater risks of disease and hamper disease control; takes the view that agricultural policy should encourage lower stocking densities and should not provide incentives for the establishment of large holdings; stresses, furthermore, that large, intensive livestock holdings should come under special veterinary, sanitary and environmental surveillance and that their siting should not adversely affect the local population or the environmentwhich may be averted by closer surveillance, more rigorous technical measures and a wide range of precautionary measures to avoid contact between herds and maintain good standards of hygiene (footbath, showers, quarantine, cleansing and sanitary breaks, control of ambient conditions, etc.); considers that agricultural policy should encourage the development of sustainable production that will make it possible to reconcile production, environmental protection and optimisation of land use;
Amendment 69 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 49 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that the criteria for granting support (grants, subsidised loans, etc.) to young farmers should be reviewed in order to be able to provide support for all young people setting up in farming, because some are currently unable to take advantage of the support available when doing so; considers, furthermore, that it should be made easier for young people from non-farming backgrounds, who often experience less favourable setting-up conditions, to become farmers; considers, lastly, that phased setting-up arrangements should be promoted in order to make it less difficult to take over holdings;
Amendment 52 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Commission to conduct a study into the effect that production rights, single-payment rights and premium rights have on the setting up of young farmers, because all such instruments are a frequent cause of conflict between generations, making it more difficult for young people wishing to set up in farming to gain access to those rights themselves; takes the view that the Commission should draw the necessary conclusions as regards management of the CAP, with a view to placing young people in a better position to set up in farming;
Amendment 60 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that the dominant model in today's farming, which has resulted in the concentration of production in the hands of undertakings with increasingly extensive land holdings and farming activities, making it increasingly difficult for new generations of farmers to take over such holdings, needs to be rethought; considers that farming models that are more sustainable and less concentrated and, above all, generate lower running costs should now be promoted; points out that such models, based on a change in production methods, would make it easier for people to become farmers and would make a more effective contribution to job creation;
Amendment 13 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas conventional and organic agriculture must remain the favoured modes of production in the European Union, in the light of criteria of social, environmental and economic performance,
Amendment 17 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas developments in biotechnologies have the potential to yield many benefits for agriculture, such as increased yi: - better-quality, healthy food (probiotics, lactic bacteria, anti-allergy products, non- toxic products); - new non-food products: second- generation biofuelds, better product quality,green chemistry (biolubricants, pharmacopeia, cosmetics, wood treatment products, starch-derived fibres, etc.); - reduced use of chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and fossil fuels and reduced soil erosion and pollution; - preservation of biodiversity; - improved natural functions of ecosystems (organic matter in soils, water cycle, etc.),
Amendment 35 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas Community legislation is sometimeregarding the part of biotechnology which concerns genetically modified organisms is interpreted differently by Member States and its implementation is therefore not always consistent across all Member States; whereas there is a clear need to develop a common approach, particularly with regard to the coexistence of genetically modified crops and Commission has been incapable of presenting common coexistence measures; whereas this incapacity bears out the impossibility of developing new products without posing risks to the environment and health and above all without affecting conventional andor organic crops which would provide the basis for choice for both farmers and consumergrowing in the vicinity of crops consisting of genetically modified organisms,
Amendment 49 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas, before being placed on the market, genetically modified products for use in agriculture necessarily have to pass very stringent assessments and the present authorisation process is slow and bureaucratichave to undergo an assessment procedure; whereas the decision taken unanimously by the Council of Ministers for the Environment on 8 December 2008 to ask the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to revise the procedures for assessing applications for authorisation of genetically modified organisms so as to take account of socioeconomic criteria was opportune; whereas this revision is justified by the need to assess the environmental and health risks over a longer period,
Amendment 72 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas 114 million hectares of genetically modified crops were grown worldwide in 2007 and this hectarage is very likely tocould be substantially increased in the following years, while the area under genetically modified cultivation in the EU is comparatively low, because the supposed benefits of this new technology have not been fully proven and the people of Europe have certain suspicions about it, being increasingly concerned about environmental protection and sustainable development issues,
Amendment 85 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Encourages efforts to develop biotechnologies in the EU as one way of making agriculture viable and capable of providing a livingpreserving the quality of life of farmers, and takes the view that these biotechnologies facilitatemust permit the development of sustainable methods of production, increased yield, higher quality and more diverse products with reduced use of fertilisers and rational use of water; underlines the need for c which simultaneously combine economic, environvmentional and organic agriculture to remain successful on their marketssocial performance;
Amendment 89 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers it important to acknowledge that biotechnology could present real opportunities in various fields; believes that, beyond the traditional agricultural products of food, feed and fibre, entiretakes the view that these fields concern the sectors of food for human consumption and health (probiotics, cancer-fighting lactic bacteria, products derived from metagenomics, etc.), animal feedingstuffs, renewable energy and, lastly, novelew products will emerge; (biolubricants, pharmacopeia, cosmetics, wood treatments, new materials derived from starch and gluten, fibres, etc.);
Amendment 96 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that biotechnology applications may helpassociated with agronomic and ecological sciences may assist the emergence of new types of sustainable production which will make it possible to reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers in crop cultivation;
Amendment 99 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the need to work towards ensuring that, in the near future, an increased variety of better and healthier food and feedstuffs could also be produced in less favoured areas, such as in restricted climate conditions, in dry or moist conditions and on harsh soil, and notes that the correctgreater cooperation between rich regions and the poorest regions, making use of biotechnology, could be an important factor in these developments; permit genuinely sustainable development based on exploiting local resources and preserving biodiversity and ecosystems;
Amendment 113 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the decisive importance, in the approval process, of protecting not only human health and the environment in the approval process and underlines the use of objective scientific criteria in this respectbut also new aspects, particularly those of a socioeconomic nature, in accordance with the statements made by Ministers for the Environment in their unanimous decision of 8 December 2008; underlines the use of objective scientific criteria and observance of a sufficient assessment period to prove that no risk exists;
Amendment 123 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes the Commission's recent report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming and urges better harmonisation of rules and conditions within the EU; emphasises the importance of the right of farmers to choose between traditional, organic and genetically modified organism production and, therefore, the need to establish clear, uniform and transparent coexistence measures that enable farmers to coexist with neighbours using different farming methodsnotes that, to date, the Commission has not wished to submit harmonised coexistence measures for the growing of genetically modified organised and/or has been incapable of doing so, which implicitly proves the practical impossibility of developing these new products without risks to the environment and health and without their affecting other types of cultivation, whether conventional or organic;
Amendment 140 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Asks for clarificationStresses the importance of establishing strict rules concerning liability for damages incurred in the growing and using of biotechnological products with regard to: who is liable, what can be claimed and, under what circumstances a claim can be made and to what extent the authorities are aware of the risks being run;
Amendment 148 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that the existence of publicly funded independent research must be guaranteed and R&D activity in all forms of production, particularly small biotechnology undertakings and plant- technology centres, must be equitably supported in order to maintain maximum competitiveness at the various levels of the food production chain;
Amendment 159 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. FearObserves that the existing complex and extensivprocedures for the implementation of the Community legislation on biotechnological trials and the long approval procedure for placing inventions on the market are creating real obstacles to European research and may lead to research activities and human resources being moved outsidecan be simplified but only on condition that it does not call into question the guarantee that these inventions will not create any risks to health and the environment and will not cause socioeconomic problems for citizens of the EU;
Amendment 160 #
2006/2059(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Considers that, for the part of biotechnology concerning genetically modified organisms, it must be possible for research - particularly public research - to be performed in a closed environment when their use has the purpose of promoting health; observes that it is currently difficult to envisage their being cultivated in open fields, in view of: - the insurmountable problem of their coexistence with conventionally and organically farmed crops, - inadequate knowledge of their medium- and long-term impact on health, the environment and socioeconomic factors, - the problems of biodiversity and economic monopoly which they pose;
Amendment 233 #
2006/0136(COD)
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where on the basis of documented evidence, particularly an analysis of the scientific documentation, an active substance is necessary to control a serious danger to plant health which cannot be contained by other available means, such active substance may be approved for a timeperiod limited period not exceeding fiveto two years even if it does not satisfy the criteria set out in points 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.6.5 or 3.8.2 of Annex II, provided that the use of the active substance is subject to risk mitigation measures to ensure that exposure of humans and the environment is minimised. For suchThis approval may be renewed once, in accordance with the provisions of the previous subparagraph. In the case of these substances, the maximum limits applicable to residue levels shallve be seten laid down in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. This derogation shall not apply to active substances which are or have to be classified in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC, as carcinogenic category 1 oror genotoxic, substances toxic for reproduction cof Category 1ies 1 and 2 or substances classified as endocrine disruptors.