21 Amendments of Hannu TAKKULA related to 2011/2051(INI)
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the European Parliament upholds the concept of multifunctional, broad-based agriculture spread throughout Europe, including areas with specific challenges, and whereas in its resolution of 8 July 2010 on the future of the CAP after 2013 it already laid the foundations for sustainable agriculture,
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Deplores the fact that the EU's biodiversity targets have yet to be met and expects the CAP to be a catalystcontribute for efforts to achieve those goals;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Encourages more EU-funded projects in which farmers and researchers can work together to find innovative ways in context of the entire food chain activities for of cultivating land in an environmentally sustainable manner;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas rural development is an important instrument of the CAP and whereas the new programmes should be geared even more strongly to the priority objectives of rural development and of farmers (employment, vitality of rural areas, diversification of rural economic activities, the agricultural environment, water, climate change, innovation and education),
Amendment 516 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that decoupling has essentially proved its worth, given the increased effect on income and greater autonomy in decision-making on the part of farmers and the associated simplification of the CAP, and calls for this also, in general, to apply to suckler cow and sheep premiums; recognises, however, that in certain sectors and regions such as mountain regions and Nordic type areas with comparable conditions, where there are no alternatives to relatively labour- intensive livestock farming, there may be considerable economic and environmental drawbacks which cannot be reconciled with the aims of the Treaty; acknowledges, therefore, that production-based premiums might be defensible within a narrowly defined framework for a limited period even after 2013can be considered essential;
Amendment 547 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls – without casting any doubt on the results of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP – for appropriations under Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 primarily to be allocated for measures to promote territorial coherence and boost key sectors (e.g. the dairy and sheep sectors and suckler cows), for area-based environmental measures (e.g. organic, farming, production of plant proteins2) which to date have not been included in the second pillar; considers that the budget for Article 68 could – subject to contrary results of an impact assessment – cover up to 10% of direct payments and in exceptional cases even higher due to extreme natural conditions;
Amendment 582 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to submit by 30 June 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 regtype areas with comparable conditions 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 land;
Amendment 624 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 20
Subheading before paragraph 20
Amendment 636 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that better natural resource protection is an element in sustainable farming, which should involve separate support forequire wider environmental measureoperations going beyond the requirements of Cross Compliance (CC), which already entail many environmental measureactions, and being geared to multiannual applications, as a result of which greater environmental benefits can be attained;
Amendment 662 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that natural resource protection should be directly linked to the granting of direct payments in order to attain these environmental objectives to the maximum without the need to introduce new, bureaucratic environmental conditions into the first pillar; considers that a flat-rate income payment, as envisaged in a top-up model in the first pillar, must cover costs and income losses;
Amendment 679 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Considers therefore that anywider environmental advantagebenefits can be attained more effectively and directly by means of second-pillar measures adopted by the Member States, whichin Rural Development Programmes, which where greening element should ideally build on existing agri-environmental measures or should supplementcan also concern other suitable measures which take into account climatice, environment and innovation (Annex I) and geographical differences in the Member States; observes that nature resource protection programmes should be pursued everywhere by means of a priority catalogue of area-based measures in the second pillar which are subject to basic requirements, particularly in the fields of climate, environment and innovation (Annex I), and are 100% EU- financed; regards the greening of direct payments in the first pillar as lying in the fact that any recipient of direct payments in the EU must implement at least two priority area-based resource protection pgreening elements selected from the measures under Rural Development Programmes in order to be eligible for the complete farm direct payment; believes that the administration involved in these measures can be minimised by managing them in accordance with the system of the existing agri-environmental programmmeasures, thus avoiding duplication of monitoring and additional application and administration procedures;
Amendment 750 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Realises that resources from the first pillar (as for a top-up model) should be used to pay for this environmentalgreening component; believes, however, that Member States where direct payments lie below the EU average should be given the option of making the payment by means of co- financing from the first pillar or instead by means of financing entirely from the second pillar; observes that the Member States must notify the Commission of their decision on the financing by 31 July 2013; notes that individual Member States' ’ modulation resources should be used;
Amendment 760 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Advocates compensation for natural disadvantages in the second pillar; calls for its effectiveness to be increased and rejects a complementary payment in the first pillar on account of the additional administrative work involved;
Amendment 876 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Recalls that market-orientated production and direct payments are at the heart of any insurance against risk, and that it is farmers who are responsible for risk prevention; supports the Member States, in this context, in making national risk insurancemanagement instruments available to farmers;
Amendment 945 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Considers that private-sector insurance schemes, such as multi-hazard insurance, must be developed in view of increasing risks; is aware of the fact that, without public contributions to the financing (from the EU and Member States), this would be difficult; supports the adoption of an EU- wide and WTO-compliant environment to ensure that no distortions of competition occur among Member States; welcomes the development of new innovative tools; rejects, however, the introduction of EU- wide insurancerisk management systems;
Amendment 1016 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Advocates that the 2006 sugar market reformgime be extended at least to 2020 in its existing form in order to develop a system for the subsequent period which can operate without quotas;
Amendment 1078 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Is aware of the importance of the second pillar, in view of its environmental, modernisation, diversification and structural improvement achievements, but also for attaining political objectives, which should also benefit farmers; calls therefore for second- pillar measures to be better suited to their objectives, so that the effectiveness of environment, growth, employment and climate measures and measures for the benefit of the vitality of rural areas can be increased; considers that, in this context, particular attention should be devoted to assisting young farmers;
Amendment 1119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Advocates therefore introducing targeted measures, to be decided by the Member States in the second pillar, to attain priority objectives of the EU (2020 Strategy); observes that these measures should be applied in addition to the basic programmes for greeninggreening elements of direct payments in the first pillar and that a reduced national cofinancing rate of 25% should apply;
Amendment 1150 #
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 whaalls for its effectiveness to be increased; considers that the current cofinancing rate appears to be appropriate; calls on the Commission to retain the existing criteria for demarcation of disadvantaged areas;
Amendment 1193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Advocates that, in the case of measures which are of particular importance to Member States, an optional increase of 25% in national co-financing in the second pillar (top-up) should be possible; alternatively considers that existing co- financing rates should apply also after 2013;
Amendment 1226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Calls for simplification and a review of the cross-compliance rules for the second pillar, considers simplification of the current indicator system to be necessary and takes a critical view of the introduction of additional quantitative targets;