BETA

45 Amendments of Spyros DANELLIS related to 2011/2051(INI)

Amendment 196 #
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 415 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. In the case of direct farm payments, advocates moving away from historical and individual reference values and calls for a transition to a uniform area-based regional or national premium for decoupled payments in the next financing period; recognises, however, that the situations in the individual Member States are very disparate, requiring special measures per region;deleted
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 464 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 481 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Calls for a further simplification of the direct payment system, for example simplified transfer rules for payment entitlements in the event of non- activation, merging of minimum payment entitlements, simplification of the rules governing the national reserve and changes to gear them more to young farmers or reduce them, depending on the transition to the regional/national single area payment, abolition of handwritten cattle registries, an effective and unbureaucratic monitoring system for both pillars and uniform penalties; considers that administrative systems which can be proven to be operating well should be looked upon favourably in the light of the scale of monitoring prescribed;deleted
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 502 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 558 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 575 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/21
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 599 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 613 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 625 #
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 634 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 659 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 666 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
22. Considers therefore that any environmental advantages can be attained more effectively and directly by means of second-pillar measures adopted by the Member States, which should ideally build on existing agrienvironmental measures or should supplement measures which take into account climatic and geographical differences in the Member States; observes that resource protection programmes should be pursued everywhere by means of a priority catalogue of area-based measures in the second pillar which are subject to basic requirements, particularly in the fields of climate, environment and innovation (Annex I), and are 100% EU-financed; regards the greening of direct payments in the first pillar as lying in the fact that any recipient of direct payments in the EU must implement at least two priority area- based resource protection programmes in order to be eligible for the complete farm payment; believes that the administration involved in these measures can be minimised by managing them in accordance with the system of the existing agrienvironmental programmes, thus avoiding duplication of monitoring and additional application and administration procedures;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 692 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 706 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Calls for the resources allocated to greening to be reserved for recipients of direct payments and only disbursed in connection with greening;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 721 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Regards this model as making a substantial contribution to the simplification of the direct payments system and to the attainment of new compulsory environmental objectives; observes that, under this model, there is no need to step up the current rate of monitoring and the current monitoring capacities, as existing checks can be used, and that checks in the second pillar can be combined in the basic and regeneration programme; considers also that no new systems of payments or penalties need be introduced;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 735 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Realises that resources from the first pillar (as for a top-up model) should be used to pay for this environmental component; believes, however, that Member States where direct payments lie below the EU average should be given the option of making the payment by means of cofinancing from the first pillar or instead by means of financing entirely from the second pillar; observes that the Member States must notify the Commission of their decision on the financing by 31 July 2013; notes that individual Member States’ modulation resources should be used;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 752 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
26. Advocates compensation for natural disadvantages in the second pillar and rejects a complementary payment in the first pillar on account of the additional administrative work involved;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 768 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 789 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 801 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 805 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 821 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 852 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 858 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 895 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Considers that the use of these instruments which have been described should be triggered only by a political assessment by the EU legislature;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 915 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Considers that, in view of the completely different conditions which exist in the individual sectors, differentiated sectoral solutions are preferable to across-the-board approaches;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 925 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Continues to support the Commission’s proposal to lower the intervention thresholds for market crops to zero, maintaining a – possibly reduced – intervention threshold only in the case of wheat;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 951 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
41. Considers rather that these measures should be promoted optionally, by decision of the Member State, in the first pillar (now Article 69) within the existing financing ceiling of the Member State concerned and that Member States should be allowed, initially, on the basis of national and regional needs, to use up to 2% of direct payments for risk management, stabilisation and prevention measures; considers that, in justified cases, Member States should be allowed to make additional resources available from national funds;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 970 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 987 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1007 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
45. Advocates that the 2006 sugar market reform be extended to 2020 in its existing form in order to develop a system for the subsequent period which can operate without quotas;deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1084 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 b (new)
48b. Points out that this rural development policy under the CAP is also an important link factor between urban and rural areas and that it must, as a component of the CAP, be consistent with the policy of territorial cohesion.
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1121 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1132 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1133 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1137 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1143 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1173 #
Motion for a resolution
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;
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1181 #
Motion for a resolution
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 financing in the second pillar (top-up) should be possible;Deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
54. Advocates that it should not be compulsory for national cofinancing to come from public funds; considers that at least 10 percentage points of any national cofinancing should come from public funds;Deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 1252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
57. Observes that there is a need for action with regard to national tax law applicable to farms in order to distribute the tax burden more evenly over a period of years;Deleted
2011/03/22
Committee: AGRI