130 Amendments of María Isabel SALINAS GARCÍA
Amendment 12 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers it necessary to step up controls and coordination among the various authorities to ensure that imported food products meet European quality, food safety, environmental and social standards, and supports the conclusions of the Agriculture Council of 19 December 2008 concerning the safety of agri- food products;
Amendment 31 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Does not agree with the concept of simplifying European standards if, under that pretext, the system of European marketing standards is dismantled (as has happened in the fruit and vegetable sector), leading to deregulation in that area; advocates a European system of marketing standards which aims to establish objective and harmonised parameters for quality criteria, thereby eliminating products of unsatisfactory quality from the market, and to facilitate commercial relations between operators on an impartial basis;
Amendment 39 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Finds the Australian model an excellent example for such a system of labelling of the country of origin, while bearing in mind the specific characteristics of the EU’s various production sectors, in its defining of various different levels such as: 'produced in' (for food products produced locally with local ingredients), 'made in' (for food products which have undergone substantial processing locally), or 'made in country X using local or imported ingredients'; recalls that similar labelling systems are used by other major trading partners such as the US and New Zealand;
Amendment 42 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 50 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Advocates taking measures to simplify the EU rules and, provided that those measures do not lead to the dismantling thereof, and to limit the scope for self- regulation; believes that common marketing standards are necessary and can be established in a more efficient fashion; considers, in this connection, that joint regulation should be promoted as the usual means of adopting EU legislation in the field; calls for municipal authorities, food industry representatives and farmers' representatives to be involved in the process;
Amendment 68 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that designations of origin constitute a crucial part of the European heritage which needs to be preserved; believes that they offer a guarantee of quality and help consumers choose from the range of goods on offer; considers it vitally important to launch promotional campaigns, with their own budgets, to inform consumers on the benefits of those public sector certification systems; considers there is a need to clarify the distinction between trademarks and designation of origin;
Amendment 71 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Considers that, where a product with a protected geographical indication (PGI) is used in a compound cooked product and the characteristics of the PGI product are altered, the protecting bodies or competent authorities must be allowed to conduct specific controls aimed at ascertaining whether or not the characteristics of the PDO product have been altered excessively;
Amendment 88 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Believes that the international protection of designations of origin should be guaranteed in the world trade negotiations; calls on the Commission to ensure that the issue is on the agenda for the WTO talks and is recognised as such by all international partners; takes the view that both exporting and non-exporting producers should be covered by that international protection on the part of the EU, which might differ on the basis of the risk of the actual counterfeiting of products, in such a way that products at high risk of counterfeiting and which are exported enjoy international protection at the WTO, while for products running a more moderate risk of counterfeiting, on local level markets, a simplified procedure could be proposed, with recognition by the Member State notified to Brussels (comparable to the level of the current temporary protection) and European legal protection;
Amendment 94 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Takes the view that Community and national controls are essential with regard to protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs), and advocates severe penalties to deter unauthorised use of those instruments, in such a way that Member States are required to automatically apply these in the event of counterfeiting or imitation of protected designations; suggests bringing forward a specific clause in Article 13 of Regulation 510/06 in that respect; favours simplifying the procedures for obtaining PDOs, as well as stringent controls by Member State authorities when certifying that all stages of the production process have taken placed in the geographical area concerned;
Amendment 103 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Suggests setting up a European OfficeAgency for Product Quality, which would work closely with the European Food Safety Authority and the Commission's units responsible for food quality; that Agency would also adjudicate on the increasing number of requests from third countries in relation to protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) products;
Amendment 110 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Believes that organic farming offers European farmers a major growth opportunity; notes, however, that the EU regulation on the subject lays down a single standard, even though the certification procedure varies between Member States and is expensive; takes the view that greater standardisation is needed in the typology of control and certification bodies and procedures for ecological products, so that consumers are provided with an assurance of safety and reliability in the form of a new EU logo for ecological agriculture, guaranteeing identical production, control and certification criteria at Community level and helping to resolve problems and further promote the single Community market in ecological products;
Amendment 124 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Considers it necessary to promote environment-friendly production systems and the rationalisation of inputs, as is the case in integrated production; points out that the introduction of European-level rules on integrated production would be a positive step as this would standardise the current criteria used in the Member States, accompanied by a suitable promotion and marketing campaign for European integrated production designed to publicise the facets of most importance and benefit to the consumer;
Amendment 128 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Points out that, as things stand, private certification systems do not fulfil the objective of helping producers to communicate the characteristics of their products to consumers, and are in fact becoming an exclusive means of access to the market, increasing red tape for farmers and becoming a business for many food distribution companies; sees a need not to promote the proliferation of such systems, which limit access to the market to a section of the production sector;
Amendment 130 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28b. Calls on the Commission to promote the mutual recognition of private certification systems in order to limit that proliferation and exclusion from the market of quality products; sees a need for Community guidelines to be drawn up that contain aspects those systems cannot regulate, such ‘status-enhancing’ references, which should be defined on the basis of objective scales and circumstances;
Amendment 14 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas, against the background of rising food prices in 2007, there has also been a considerable rise in agricultural production costs as a result of increased costs for fertilisers and phytosanitary products, and whereas at present, although the prices of agricultural products are falling steadily, there has been no fall, at the same level and across the same period, in production costs,
Amendment 17 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas this fall in agricultural prices and the stagnation of production costs are putting farmers into an unsustainable financial situation, and many of them are abandoning production because it is unprofitable,
Amendment 54 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that it is necessary to introduce market management measures within the CAP in order to bring about stability in the agricultural production sector – and hence in the agri-food market – so as to achieve sustainable European agricultural production and a stable supply of food products to consumers and to prevent instability and ‘see-saw’ effects in both prices and production;
Amendment 61 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Believes that it is necessary to concentrate agricultural production supplies by means of producers’ organisations, such as cooperatives or other organisations (an established objective in certain COMs e.g. fruit and vegetables) so as to adjust the balance of power within the food chain, give farmers’ products greater added value, increase farmers’ negotiating strength vis-à-vis other commercial agents, and shorten the marketing channels to consumers;
Amendment 112 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes with concern that much more transparency is needed on the pricing structure and profit margins of retailers, processors and primary producers; calls on competition authorities at national and European levels to investigate and evaluate consumer prices throughout the EU to ensure that competition rules are respected and to ascertain the responsibility of the various operators who comprise the value chain;
Amendment 123 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Notes that one of the causes of the difference between prices at source and at destination is imbalance in the food chain, and that, despite this, the EU lacks adequate measures to encourage producers’ organisations via cooperatives or other organisations to encourage supply concentration; calls on the Commission to establish measures, both within the CAP and in other European policies, to encourage such organisations, which will result in a better organisation of the market and increased negotiating strength for producers vis-à-vis the other links in the food chain;
Amendment 158 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Amendment 159 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that wider and better information to consumers is paramount, in order to encourage a climate of confidence in the system, and all efforts should be taken towards educating and correctly informing the consumer;
Amendment 168 #
2008/2175(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Urges for a reinforcement of the cooperation between producers either by following the traditional format of producer organizations or by introducing new forms of cooperation in marketing operations of farmers in a specific region;
Amendment 34 #
2008/0183(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1
Article 2 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point b
Article 27 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 – point b
b) all costs of transport of food productsarising from the distribution of food products, including the transport, storage and administrative costs for the designated organisations directly, linked with the implementation of the scheme.
Amendment 10 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The objectives of the CAP set out in Article 33 of the Treaty include the stabilisation of markets, assuring the availability of supplies and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. The provision of Community aid under a School Fruit Scheme to supply fruit and vegetable and banana products to pupils in educational establishments would meet these objectives. Further, the Scheme should bring young consumers to appreciate fruit and vegetables and therefore should enhance future consumption, creating a multiplier effect by involving pupils, parents and teachers, and thereby promoting earnings in agriculture, also an objective of the CAP. In addition, under Article 35(b) of the Treaty, provision may be made within the framework of the common agricultural policy for joint measures, such as a School Fruit Scheme, to promote consumption of certain products.
Amendment 18 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Provision should therefore be made for Community aid to co-finance the supplying to pupils in educational establishments certain healthy products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and bananas sectors and also for certain related costs of logistics, distribution, equipment, communication, monitoring and evaluation. The Commission should lay down the conditions of the Scheme, as well as the accompanying measures required to ensure the effectiveness of the Scheme. The Commission should lay down the conditions of the Scheme. Particular attention should be paid to the criteria of the quality and sustainability of the products covered by the Scheme: they should meet the highest standards and should, by preference, be seasonal and produced locally or, where possible, within the Community.
Amendment 26 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 7
Recital 7
7) In order to ensure orderly implementation of the School Fruit Scheme, Member States, at national or regional level, wishing to make use of it should draw up a prior strategy. They should also provide for accompanying measures required to make the scheme effective. In the implementation of this School Fruit Scheme, every effort should be made to apply the principle of subsidiarity, leaving the Member States a wide margin of manoeuvre when drawing up their strategies. As well as the agricultural sector, health and education authorities should be involved.
Amendment 31 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to ensure sound budgetary management, a fixedsufficient ceiling of Community aid and maximum co-financing rates should be provided for and the Community financial contribution to the scheme should be added to the list of measures eligible for EAFG financing set out in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.
Amendment 34 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In order to allow time for the smooth implementation of the Scheme, it should apply from the 2009/10 school year. A report on it should be delivered after three years. Since only a long-term programme will yield long-term benefits, it is necessary to ensure the monitoring and evaluation of the programme in order to measure its effectiveness and propose possible improvements.
Amendment 36 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to make the scheme more effective, the Community should be able to finance information, monitoring and evaluation measures aimed at raising public awareness of, and networking measures related to, the School Fruit Scheme and its objectives without prejudice to its powers to co-finance, in the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries1, necessary accompanying measures to raise awareness about the beneficial health effects of fruit and vegetables consumption. It will be essential for the Commission to undertake a major Union- wide publicity campaign for the Scheme.
Amendment 50 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Regulation (EC) n° 1234/2007
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 1
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 1
1. Under conditions to be determined by the Commission, from the 2009/10 school year, Community aid shall be granted for supplying to pupils in educational establishments certain products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and bananas sectors to be determined by the Commission and mayshall also be granted for certain related costs of logistics, distribution, equipment, communication, monitoring and evaluation, as well as for purposes of financing the accompanying measures needed to ensure the effectiveness of the Scheme.
Amendment 53 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Regulation (EC) n° 1234/2007
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 1a (new
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 1a (new
1a. The products included in the Scheme shall meet the highest standards and shall, by preference, be seasonal and produced locally or, where possible, within the Community. Priority shall be given to sustainable products.
Amendment 58 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Regulation (EC) n° 1234/2007
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 2
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 2
2. Member States, at national or regional level, wishing to participate in the scheme shall draw up a prior strategy for its implementation. They shall also provide for accompanying measures necessary to make the sScheme effective. Under this strategy, Member States shall determine, inter alia, the following: - the products to be distributed, taking account of the fact that seasonal and local products are concerned; - the age-groups of the beneficiary school population; - the schools participating in the Scheme.
Amendment 65 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Regulation (EC) n° 1234/2007
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 3(b)
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 3(b)
b) exceed 50% of the costs of supply and related costs referred to in paragraph 1, or 75% of such costs in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objectiveand those of the accompanying measures, as referred to in paragraph 1,
Amendment 67 #
2008/0146(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Article 2 – point 1 – subpoint a
Regulation (EC) n° 1234/2007
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 3(c)
Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section 4a – subsection IIa – Article 103 ga – Point 3(c)
c) cover costs other than the costs of supply and related costs and those of the accompanying measures required to ensure the effectiveness of the Scheme, as referred to in paragraph 1, and
Amendment 29 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point (d)
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point (d)
Amendment 48 #
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 3 – point (b)
Article 16 a – paragraph 3 – point (b)
Amendment 51 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Amendment 53 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 4 a (new)
Article 1 – point 4 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 28 – paragraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1
(4a) Article 28, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: "1. Support provided for in Article 20(b)(iii), shall be granted for tangible and/or intangible investments which: (a) improve the overall performance of the enterprise; (b) concern: - the processing and/or marketing of products covered by Annex I to the Treaty, except fishery products, and of forestry products and cotton; and/or - the development of new products, processes and technologies linked to products covered by Annex I to the Treaty, except fishery products, and to forestry products and cotton; and (c) respect the Community standards applicable to the investment concerned. Where investments are made in order to comply with Community standards, support may be granted only to those which are made by micro-enterprises, as referred in paragraph 2, in order to comply with a newly introduced Community standard. In that case a period of grace, not exceeding 36 months from the date on which the standard becomes mandatory for the enterprise, may be provided to meet the standard."
Amendment 55 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 1 – point 6 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 60
Article 60
Amendment 57 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 7
Article 1 – point 7
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 69 – paragraph 5 a – paragraph 5 b – paragraph 5 c
Article 69 – paragraph 5 a – paragraph 5 b – paragraph 5 c
Amendment 156 #
2008/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex I
Annex I
Amendment 135 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Experience drawn from the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 shows that certain elements of the support mechanism need to be adjusted. In particular the decoupling of direct support shcould be extended and the functioning of the Single Payment Scheme shcould be simplified. It should also be noted that Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 has been substantially amended since its entry into force. In the light of these developments and in the interest of clarity it should be repealed and replaced by a new Regulation.
Amendment 164 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The savings madefunds obtained through the modulation mechanism introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 are used to finance measures under the rural development policy. Since the adoption of that regulation the agricultural sector has been faced with a number of new and demanding challenges such as climate change, the increasing importance of bio- energy, as well as the need for a better water management and a more effective protection of biodiversity. The European Community, as party to the Kyoto Protocol, has been called to adapt its policies in the light of the climate change considerations. Furthermore, following serious problems related to water scarcity and droughts, water management issues should be further addressed. Protecting biodiversity remains a major challenge and while important progress has been made, the achievement of the European Community's biodiversity target for 2010 will require additional efforts12. The Community acknowledges the need to tackle these new challenges in the framework of its policies. In the area of agriculture, rural development programs adopted under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2006 of 20 September 2005 on 1 Council Conclusion, Brussels, 18.12.2006, 16164/06. support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)13 are an appropriate tool to deal with them. To enable Member States to revise their rural development programmes accordingly without being required to reduce their current rural development activities in other areas, additional funding needs to be made available. However, the financial perspectives for the period 2007 to 2013 do not provide for the financial means to reinforce the Community's rural development policy as necessary. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to mobilise a large part of the financial resources needed by providing for a gradual increase of the reduction of direct payments through modulation.
Amendment 170 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The distribution of direct income support among farmers is characterised by the allocation of a large share of payments to a rather limited number of large beneficiaries. It is clear that larger beneficiaries do not require the same level of unitary support for the objective of income support to be efficiently attained. Moreover, the potential to adapt makes it easier to larger beneficiaries to operate with lower levels of unitary support. It therefore seems equitable to expect farmers with high amounts of support to make a particular contribution to the financing of rural development measures addressing new challenges. Therefore, it appears appropriate to establish a mechanism providing for an increased reduction of the highest payments the proceeds of which should also be used to deal with new challenges in the framework of rural development or in the framework of the first pillar to cope with specific situations. To ensure the proportionality of this mechanism the additional reductions should increase progressively according to the amounts of the payments concerned.
Amendment 178 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The amounts resulting from the application of 5 percentage points corresponding to modulation reductions fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 should be allocated between Member States according to objective criteria. However, it is appropriate to establish that a certain percentage of the amounts should remain in the Member States where they have been generated. In view of the structural adjustments resulting from the abolition of rye intervention, it is appropriate to provide for specific measures for certain rye production regions financed with part of the amounts generated by modulation. However, the amounts raised by the application of any furtherthe new modulation reductionpercentages and maximum aid thresholds should be made available to the Member States where they have been generated.
Amendment 186 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The management of small amounts is a burdensome task for the competent authorities of the Member States. To avoid excessive administrative burden it is appropriate for Member States who so decide to be able to refrain from granting direct payments where the payment would be lower than the Community average support for one hectare or the eligible area of the holding for which support is claimed would relate to less than one hectare. Special provision should be made for those Member States whose farm structure differs significantly from the average Community one. Member States should be given discretion to opt for the implementation of one of the two criteria taking account of the particularities of the structures of their agricultural economies. As special payment entitlements were allocated to farmers with so-called "landless" holdings the application of the hectare-based threshold would be ineffective. Such farmers should therefore be subject to the averages support-based minimum amount.
Amendment 188 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 198 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Further to the integration of formerly coupled market support into the single payment scheme, the value of payment entitlements was, in those Member States opting for a historic implementation, based on the individual level of past support. With a growing number of years elapsing since the introduction of the single payment scheme and following the successive integration of further sectors into the single payment scheme, it becomes increasingly harder to justify the legitimacy of significant individual differences in the support level which are only based on past support. For this reason Member States that chose the historic implementation model should be allowed under certain conditions to review the allocated payment entitlements with a view to approximating their unit value while respecting the general principles of community law and the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. In this context Member States may take into account the specificities of geographical areas when fixing closer values. The levelling of payment entitlements should take place during an adequate transition period, depending on the pace of implementation chosen by each Member State, and within a limited range of reductions in order to allow farmers to reasonably adapt to the changing levels of support.
Amendment 207 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, while introducing a decoupled single payment scheme allowed Member States to exclude certain payments from that scheme. At the same time Article 64(3) of that Regulation provided for the revision of the options provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 5 of its Title III, in the light of market and structural developments. An analysis of the relevant experience shows that decoupling could introduces flexibility in the choice of producers, enabling them to take their production decisions on the basis of profitability and market response. This is particularly the case for the arable crops, hops and seeds sectors, and to a certain extent, also the beef sector. Therefore, the partially coupled payments in these sectors should be integrated into the single payment scheme. In order for farmers in the beef sector to gradually adjust to the new support arrangements provision should be made for a phasing-in of the integration of the special premium for male animals and the slaughter premiumerefore, it is desirable to authorise those Member States which so decide to continue decoupling aid. Since the partially coupled payments in the fruit and vegetable sectors were only recently introduced, and only as a transitional measure, no review of such schemes is necessary.
Amendment 212 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) However, as regards the suckler cow and sheep and goat sector it appears that maintaining a minimum level of agricultural production may still be necessary for ensuring a balance in some sectors and for the agricultural economies in certain regions and, in particular, where farmers cannot have recourse to other economic alternatives. Against this background, Member States should have the option to maintain coupled support at the current level or, for suckler cows, at a lower level. In that case, special provision should be made for the respect of the identification and registration requirements provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council1 and Council Regulation (EC) No 21/. OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1. OJ L 5, 9.1.20042, in particular with a view to secure the traceability of animals. 1 2p. 8.
Amendment 221 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Member States should be allowed to use up to 120% 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 224 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32 a (new)
Recital 32 a (new)
(32a) In view of the increasing importance of effective risk management, Member States should be offered the option of contributing financially to the payment of the agricultural insurance premiums paid by farmers, as well as to the funding of financial compensation for certain economic losses arising from animal and plant diseases.
Amendment 228 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) The de-coupling of direct support and the introduction of the single payment scheme were essential elements in the process of reforming the common agricultural policy. However several reasons called in 2003 for maintaining specific support for a number of crops. Experience gained through the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 together with the evolution of the market situation indicates that schemes that were kept outside the single payment scheme in 2003 can now be integrated into that scheme to promote a more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture. This is the case in particular for the olive oil sector, where only marginal coupling was applied. It is also the case for the durum wheat, protein crops, rice, potato starch, and nuts payments, where the decreasing effectiveness of remaining coupled payments, supports the decoupling option. In the case of flax it is also appropriate to abolish the support for processing and to integrate the relevant amounts into the single payment scheme. As regards rice, dried fodder, potato starch and flax a transitional period should be provided for in order to ensure their shift to decoupled support to be as smooth as possible. As regards nuts, Member States should be allowed to continue to pay the national part of the aid in a coupled way in order to cushion the effects of decouplingould now, at Member States' discretion, be integrated into that scheme to promote a more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture.
Amendment 232 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) As a consequence of the possible integration of new schemes into the single payment scheme, provision should be made for the calculation of the new level of individual income support under that scheme. In the case of nuts, potato starch, flax and dried fodder, such increase should be granted on the basis of the support farmers received in most recent years. However, in the case of the integration of payments that were so far partially excluded from the single payment scheme, Member states should be given the option to use the original reference periods.
Amendment 237 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 a (new)
Recital 37 a (new)
(37a) Attention should be drawn to the situation as regards support for tobacco producers, a sector in which experience shows that it is advisable to extend coupled support until 2013 in order to avoid serious socio-economic repercussions in certain regions and better prepare producers for the transition to the new scheme.
Amendment 399 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Amendment 401 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. A Member State may decide that the aid application needs to contain only changes with respect to the aid application submitted the previous year. A Member State shall distribute pre-printed forms based on the areas determined in the previous year and supply graphic material indicating the location of those areas and, where appropriate, the positioning of olive trees.
Amendment 413 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where a Member State decides to make use of the option provided for in the first subparagraph, in the following year the competent authority shall take the actions required to ensure thatinform the farmer remediesof the findings of non-compliance concerned. The finding and the remedial action to be taken shall be notified to the farme, and the farmer shall in turn notify the actions taken to remedy the problem. For the purposes of monitoring the measures taken by the farmer, the competent authority shall take these farms into account when carrying out the risk analysis for on-the-spot-checks in the following year.
Amendment 420 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shallmay decide not to grant direct payments to a farmer in one of the following cases:
Amendment 429 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point (a)
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point (a)
(a) where the total amount of direct payments claimed or due to be granted in a given calendar year does not exceed an amount set by the Member State that may not exceed EUR 2500, or
Amendment 437 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point (b)
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point (b)
(b) where the eligible area of the holding for which direct payments are claimed or due to be granted does not exceed onean area set by the Member State that may not exceed two hectares. However, Cyprus may set a minimum eligible area of 0.3 hectares and Malta of 0.1 hectares.
Amendment 443 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may decide in an objective and non-discriminatory manner not to grant direct payments to companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty whose principal company's objects do not consist of exercising an agricultural activitythe production, rearing or cultivation of agricultural products, including harvesting, milking, breeding and the keeping of animals for agricultural purposes, or the marketing thereof through producers' organisations or cooperatives.
Amendment 458 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point (a)
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point (a)
(a) any agricultural area of the holding, including the areas planted with short rotation coppice (CN code ex 0602 90 41), that is used for an agricultural activity or, in case areas are used as well for non agricultural activities, predominantly used for agricultural activities. The Commission, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 128(2) of this Regulation, shall lay down detailed rules on the use for non agricultural activities to be allowed on eligible hectares.
Amendment 474 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 3
Article 45 – paragraph 3
3. In case of a transfer of the special entitlements, the transferee shall not benefit from the derogation of paragraph 2 except in case of inheritance or anticipated inheritance or where he does not have the area necessary to activate them.
Amendment 475 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46
Article 46
Amendment 492 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49
Article 49
Amendment 511 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1
Article 55 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1
1. Member States that in accordance with Article 68(2)(a)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 retained all or part of the component of national ceilings referred to in Article 41 of this Regulation corresponding to the suckler cow premium or the special premium referred to in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 shall make, on a yearly basis, an additional payment to farmers.
Amendment 523 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – subparagraph -1 (new)
Article 64 – subparagraph -1 (new)
As from 2010, Member States which so decide may decouple the specific aid for producers of rice, protein crops, dried fodder and nuts.
Amendment 524 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 64
Article 64
Member States shallmay integrate as from 2010 the support available under coupled support schemes referred to in points I, II, and III of Annex X into the single payment scheme in accordance with the rules laid down in this chapter.
Amendment 534 #
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 use from 2010 up to 120% of their national ceilings referred to in Article 41 to grant support to farmers:
Amendment 560 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) for distributing, among farmers in the same sector, the funds gained through a linear reduction in aid applied within that same sector.
Amendment 566 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) to address specific disadvantages affecting farmers in the dairy, beef, sheep and goatmeat and riceother sectors in economically vulnerable or environmentally sensitive areasreferred to in Title IV of this Regulation, as the Member States deem appropriate,
Amendment 574 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) in areas subject to restructuring and/or development programs in order to avoid abandoning of land and/or in order to address specific disadvantages for farmers in those areas, whereby priority may be given to producers belonging to a producers' organisation or farming cooperative,
Amendment 576 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) in the form of contributions to cropagricultural insurance premiums in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 6927a (new) of Council Regulation (EC) No (...) amending Regulations (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 3/2008 and (EC) No [...]/2008 adapting the common agricultural policy,
Amendment 579 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 68 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) mutual funds for animal and plant diseases in accordance with the conditions set outlaid down in Article 7027a (new) of Council Regulation (EC) No (...) amending Regulations (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 3/2008 and (EC) No [...]/2008 adapting the common agricultural policy.
Amendment 584 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 2
Article 68 – paragraph 2
Amendment 595 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 68 – paragraph 3 – point a
Amendment 605 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 4
Article 68 – paragraph 4
4. Support under the measures referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (e) shall be limited to 2.510% of the national ceilings referred to in Article 41 Member States may set sub-limits per measure.
Amendment 611 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 68 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (d) shall take the form of annual additional payments,
Amendment 614 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 68 – paragraph 5 – point b
Amendment 616 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 5 – point d
Article 68 – paragraph 5 – point d
(d) in paragraph 1(e) shall take the form of compensation payments as specified in Article 70. 27a (new) of Council Regulation (EC) No (...) amending Regulations (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007 and (EC) No [...]/2008 adapting the common agricultural policy.
Amendment 621 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 8 − introductory part
Article 68 – paragraph 8 − introductory part
8. Member States shall raisecollect the funds needed to cover the support referred to:
Amendment 622 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 8 – point a
Article 68 – paragraph 8 – point a
(a) in paragraph 1(a), (b), (c) and (d): (i) by proceeding to linear reduction of the entitlements allocated to farmers and/or, (ii) by reducing the national ceilings corresponding to sectors with coupled payments, (iii) from the funds provided for in Article 9(4), (iv) from the national reserve, .
Amendment 623 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 8 – point b
Article 68 – paragraph 8 – point b
(b) in paragraph 1(e) by proceeding, if necessary, to linear reduction of one or several of the payments to be made to the beneficiaries of the relevant payments in accordance with this title and within the limits set out in paragraphs 1 and 3the amounts referred to in point (a)(i) and (ii) of this paragraph.
Amendment 624 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 8 – point b a (new)
Article 68 – paragraph 8 – point b a (new)
(ba) Where a Member State has made retentions in accordance with Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, it may continue to use those funds for the sectors in which it applied in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1(a) of this article.
Amendment 688 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Amendment 694 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77
Article 77
Aid shall be granted to farmers producing cotton falling within CN code 5201 00 under the conditions laid down in this sectionCouncil Regulation (EC) No 637/2008.
Amendment 695 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 78
Article 78
Amendment 696 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79
Article 79
Amendment 697 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 80
Article 80
Amendment 698 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 81
Article 81
Amendment 738 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 133 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 133 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
However, Articles 66, 67, 68, 68a, 69, 70(1)(a) and Chapters 1 (durum wheat) 2, (protein crop premium), 4 (area payment for nuts), 8, (energy crops), 9 (seed aid), 10 (arable crops area payment), 10b (aid for olive groves), 10c (Tobacco aid) and 10d (hops area payment) of Title IV of that Regulation shall continue to apply for 2009.
Amendment 742 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – line 5 – column 2
Annex I – line 5 – column 2
Title IV, Chapter 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/20031, Section 1a of this Regulation
Amendment 768 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X –part I – indent 2
Annex X –part I – indent 2
Amendment 769 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – part I – indent 3
Annex X – part I – indent 3
Amendment 773 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – part I – indent 4
Annex X – part I – indent 4
Amendment 777 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – part I – indent 5
Annex X – part I – indent 5
Amendment 783 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – part I a (new)
Annex X – part I a (new)
Ia From 2010, where a Member State does not take the decision referred to in Article 64(1) (new) of this Regulation: - the protein crop premium provided for in Chapter 2 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003; - the crop specific payment for rice provided for in Chapter III of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Section 1 of Chapter 1 of Title IV of this Regulation, in accordance with the time schedule provided for in Article 72(2) of this Regulation; - the area payment for nuts provided for in Chapter 4 of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003; - the aid for processing dried fodder provided for in Subsection I of Section I of Chapter IV of Title I of Part II of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;
Amendment 784 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex X – part II – introductory phrase
Annex X – part II – introductory phrase
From 2010, but from 2009 in the case of olive groves, where a Member State granted the:
Amendment 788 #
Amendment 20 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) By judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 7 September 2006 in case C-310/04 Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 was annulled for breach of the principle of proportionality, in particular with reference to the circumstance that "the Council, the author of Regulation (EC) No 864/2004, [had] not shown before the Court that in adopting the new cotton support scheme established by that regulation it actually exercised its discretion, involving the taking into consideration of all the relevant factors and circumstances of the case, including all the labour costs linked to cotton growing and the viability of the ginning undertakings, which it was necessary to take into account for assessing the profitability of that crop" and that the Court had not been enabled "to ascertain whether the Community legislature [had been] able, without exceeding the bounds of the broad discretion it enjoys in the matter, to reach the conclusion that fixing the amount of the specific aid for cotton at 35% of the total existing aid under the previous support scheme would suffice to guarantee the objective set out in recital 5 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 864/2004, namely to ensure the profitability and hence the continuation of that crop, an objective reflecting that laid down in paragraph 2 of Protocol No 4". The Court also ordered that the effects of the annulment be suspended until the adoption, within a reasonable time, of a new regulationat the amount of the specific aid for cotton is calculated in such a way as to create economic conditions which will enable cotton-growing to continue in the regions devoted to that activity and prevent the replacement of cotton by other crops.
Amendment 21 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) A new scheme of specific payment for cotton needs to be adopted in conformity with the Court's judgement in case C-310/04 – a scheme which, as described both in the Court’s judgement and in the objective formulated in the fifth recital of Regulation No 864/2004, should lead to profitability which will enable cotton- growing to continue on a sustainable basis.
Amendment 23 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 3a (new)
Recital 3a (new)
(3a) Cotton is grown mainly in regions whose GDP is amongst the lowest in the European Union and whose economy is closely linked to agriculture. In such areas, cotton-growing and the ginning industry which supports it are prime sources of income and employment, accounting in certain cases for over 80% of activity in the area in which they are established. Furthermore, soil conditions in certain areas are such that, from an agronomic point of view, no alternative crop can be established in the short term.
Amendment 24 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 3b (new)
Recital 3b (new)
(3b) The current cotton-aid scheme is highly specific in nature. Its roots lie in the Accession Treaties relating to Greece, Spain and Portugal and one of its objectives is to support cotton production in certain Community regions which are now dependent on that crop, to provide the producers concerned with a fair income and to stabilise the market.
Amendment 25 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 3c (new)
Recital 3c (new)
(3c) In order to enable specific situations to be addressed with the appropriate degree of flexibility, the Member States should be able to establish a certain balance between individual aid entitlements and regional or national averages and between current payments and the single payment. Furthermore, in order to enable a Member State’s specific agricultural conditions to be taken into account, it must be possible for that Member State to request a transitional period within which to apply the single- payment scheme, though without exceeding the budget ceilings established in connection with that scheme. Should competition be seriously distorted during the transitional period and in order to ensure that the obligations entered into by the Community at international level are fulfilled, the Commission should be able to take whatever action is required in order to deal with such situations.
Amendment 26 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 4
Recital 4
Amendment 28 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) All the relevant factors and circumstances pertaining to the specific situation of the cotton sector, including all the elements necessary to assess the profitability of that crop, should be taken into consideration. Cotton is grown in regions which still quality as convergence-objective regions for the 2007-2013 period and which have an essentially agricultural economy with few alternative crops. Furthermore, cotton- growing and the associated agri-industry are a major source of employment and wealth in those areas. To this end, an evaluation and consultation process was launched: two studies were carried out on the socio-economic and on the environmental impact on the cotton sector in the Community of the future cotton support scheme and specific seminars and an internet consultation were organised with stakeholders.
Amendment 29 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The de-coupling of direct producer support and the introduction of the single payment scheme are essential elements in the process of reforming the common agricultural policy (CAP) aimed at moving away from a policy of price andCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 introduced the de-coupling of direct productioner support to a policy of farmer income support. Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 introduced those elementsand a single- payment scheme for several agricultural products.
Amendment 30 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) A complete integration in the single payment scheme of the support scheme operating in the cotton sector is likely towould bring a significant risk of production disruption to the cotton producer regions of the Community. PA significant part of the support should therefore continue to be linked to the cultivation of cotton through a crop- specific payment per eligible hectare. ItsThe amount shouldof that payment must be calculated in such a way so as to achieve the objectives set out in paragraph 2 of Protocol 4create economic conditions which while also brl enable cotton-growing theo cotton schemntinue into the mainstream of the CAP reform process and simplification. To that end, in the light of the evaluation carried out, it is justified that the total available aid per hectare per Member State is set at 35% regions devoted to that activity and prevent the replacement of cotton by other crops. To this end, it is justified that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, each Member State should be allowed to set the total available aid at up to 80%of the national share of the aid that went indirectly to the producers. Such a rate, the minimum percentage being 35%. This would allows the cotton sector to move towards long- term viability, promotes the sustainable development of the cotton- producing regions and ensures a fair income to farmers.
Amendment 32 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 8a (new)
Recital 8a (new)
(8a) With a view to enabling the Member States to tailor coupled aid to the varying circumstances under which their production takes place (thereby ensuring that the cotton-ginning industries receive a supply which is adequate in terms of quality and quantity), the Member States must be allowed to devise means of differentiating that coupled aid on the basis of objective elements such as environmental criteria, the characteristics of cotton plantations, and so on.
Amendment 34 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The remaining 65%percentage of the national share of the aid that went indirectly to the producers (which would be between 20% and 65%) should be available for the single payment scheme.
Amendment 35 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) For environmental reasons, a baseA base cultivation area per Member State should be established in order to limit the areas sown under cotton, with priority to be given to traditional growing areas in order to ensure that cotton-growing continues in areas in which cotton production is of particular importance to the agricultural economy. In addition, the eligible areas should be restricted to those authorised by the Member States.
Amendment 38 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to meet the needs of the ginning industry eligibility for the aid should be related to a minimum quality of cotton actually harvesteaccordance with the subsidiarity principle the Member States set the level of coupled aid between the above- mentioned limits and they should also establish the minimum quality of cotton actually harvested, so that farmers can avail themselves of that aid.
Amendment 43 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 13a (new)
Recital 13a (new)
(13a) In order to facilitate the transition from the previously established cotton-aid scheme to the scheme established under this Regulation, action will have to be taken in order to restructure the ginning sector.
Amendment 47 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1
Article 1
Regulation (EC) 1782/2003
Article 110b – (paragraph 1)
Article 110b – (paragraph 1)
1. The aid shall be granted per hectare of eligible area of cotton. In order to be eligible, the area shall be located on agricultural land authorised by the Member State for cotton production, sown under authorised varieties and actually harvescultivated under normal growing conditions. The aid referred to in Article 110a shall bMember States shall specify the minimum quality of harvested cotton which farmers must achieve if they are to secure access to the paid for cotton of sound and fair merchantable quality. . However, in cases where cotton does not reach the end of its production cycle on account of exceptional climatic conditions acknowledged as such by the Member State, the areas under cotton may continue to receive aid, provided that they are not used for a purpose other than cotton-production during the period which would have been covered by the cycle.
Amendment 48 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1
Article 1
Regulation (EC) 1782/2003
Article 110b (paragraph 2a new)
Article 110b (paragraph 2a new)
2a. Producer Member States may lay down additional terms and conditions relating to the sowing, growing, harvesting and delivery of cotton to ginning industries with a view to enabling cotton-growing to continue in production areas and to prevent it from being replaced by other crops.
Amendment 52 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1
Article 1
Regulation (EC) 1782/2003
Article 110c (paragraph 2)
Article 110c (paragraph 2)
2. The amount of the aid per eligible hectare shall be as follows: –- Bulgaria: EUR 263 to 601, – Greece: EUR 594 for 300 000 hectares and EUR 342.85 for the remaining 70 000 hectares46 euro to 1 248, – Spain: EUR 1 039, to 2 375 – Portugal: EUR 556 to 1 271
Amendment 55 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1
Article 1
Regulation (EC) 1782/2003
Article 110c – paragraph 3 – sub paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 110c – paragraph 3 – sub paragraph 2 a (new)
If their production conditions so justify, the Member States may establish a percentage for aid coupled to production which may not exceed 80%.
Amendment 58 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article one
Article one
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003
Article 110(2) – Paragraph 2
Article 110(2) – Paragraph 2
2. Farmers who are members of an approvAuthorised iInter-bBranch organisations shall be granted an aid, of EUR 10 per eligible hectare (within the base area laid down in Article 110c(1)), increased by an amount of EUR 3belonging to farmers which are members of those organisations..
Amendment 62 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article one
Article one
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003
Article 1a (new)
Article 1a (new)
Article 1a 1. In view of the effects produced within the ginning industries during the 2006/07 and 2007/08 seasons through application of the provisions in force during that period and with a view to making sure that the industry is viable in the future and consequently that cotton-growing continues, a specific plan for the restructuring of the ginning sector must be adopted, in order to enable that sector to adapt to changed circumstances. 2. Expenditure incurred in applying the ginning-sector restructuring plan shall be regarded as intervention measures intended to regularise agricultural markets, pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005. 3. In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 144(2), the Commission shall adopt the rules governing application of the above paragraph - in particular, the rules relating to the financial and economic aspects which are necessary in order to compensate for the reduction in the volume of raw material which may be ginned by the industry and the possible abandonment of the sector by some of the existing companies.
Amendment 63 #
2007/0242(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article one
Article one
Rule (EC) No 1782/2003
Article 1(b)(new)
Article 1b 1. Actions aimed at agricultural- machinery service companies affected by the drop in production shall be promoted.
Amendment 13 #
2007/0094(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Member States should further provide for a presumption of a work relationship of at least six months duration so that the burden of proof is put on the employer in respect of at least a certain period. This presumption should, however, be reduced proportionately in the case of the contracting practices of certain sectors such as agriculture where the duration of contracts is by definition very brief.
Amendment 14 #
2007/0094(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Member States should provide for the possibility of further sanctions against business employers, including exclusions from entitlement to public benefits, aids or subsidies, including agricultural subsidies, with legal employment of third-country labour being a conditionality criterion for the granting of CAP aids; exclusions from public procurement procedures; and recovery of public benefits, aids or subsidies, including EU funding managed by Member States, that have already been granted.
Amendment 16 #
2007/0094(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In view of the prevalence of subcontracting in certain affected sectors, it is necessary to ensure that all the undertakings in a chain of subcontracting are held jointly and severally liable to pay financial sanctions against an employer at the end of the chain who employs illegally staying third-country nationals.., provided it is established that they were not acting in good faith and that they were aware that the final employer's contracting practices were illegal;
Amendment 19 #
2007/0094(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) To facilitate enforcement, there should be effective complaint mechanisms by which relevant third-country nationals can lodge complaints directly or through designated third parties such as trade unions or other associations. The designated third parties should be protected, when providing assistance to lodge complaints, against possible sanctions under rules prohibiting the facilitation of unauthorised residence. The mediating role of sectoral organisations with a major grassroots presence should be boosted.
Amendment 31 #
2007/0094(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) provide that a work relationship of at least 6 months duration be presumed unless the employer can prove differently. This presumption regarding the duration of the working relationship shall be revised downwards in those sectors where contracts are by definition temporary or seasonal.
Amendment 37 #
2007/0094(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Where the employer is a subcontractor, Member States shall ensure that the main contractor and any intermediate subcontractor are, to the extent that they are aware of or encourage such practices, liable to pay:
Amendment 39 #
2007/0094(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall not impose sanctions against designated third parties providing assistance to the third-country national to lodge complaints, on the grounds of facilitation of unauthorised residence, this being especially so in the case of the representative organisations of particular sectors.
Amendment 269 #
2006/0136(COD)
Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2 and subject to Community law, appropriate conditions may be imposed with respect to the requirements referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 31(3) and other risk mitigation measures deriving from specific conditions of use. Where the concerns of a Member State related to human or animal health or the environment cannot be controlled by the establishment of national risk mitigation measures referred to in the first subparagraph, a Member State may as a last resort refuse authorisation of the plant protection product in its territory if, due to its very specific environmental or agricultural circumstances, it has substantiated reasons to consider that the product in question poses a serious risk to human or animal health or the environment. It shall immediately inform the applicant and the Commission of its decision and provide a technical or scientific justification therefor. Member States shall provide for a possibility to challenge the decision refusing the authorisation of such product before the national courts or other instances of appeal.