DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 383 /X

" Recommend to the European Parliament the adoption of a set of

measures to be inserted in the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down rules

common for the direct support scheme for farmers under the CAP and

establishes certain support schemes for farmers "

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will be perhaps one of the community policies more

controversial, for being sometimes inductive of inequalities and injustices between countries,

regions and farmers of the European space, but at the same time it is one of the most

important and necessary, given the heterogeneity of territories, the differential of

endogenous potentials in the countries of the Union, the diversity and specificity of productions,

and the differences between the distinct organizational cultures.

The longevity of the CAP also proves its printability, its ability to

adaptation to serve a Community in paulatine growth, in time to

social and economic changes on a global scale.

On the other hand, the competitiveness of European agriculture faces today, new and

complex challenges, which have to do with the security of supplies, the quality

food, environmental sustainability, climate change, renewable energy,

and the maintenance of a dynamic and diversified economy in rural territories, in

coherence with the objectives reaffirmed in the Treaty of Lisbon, and which contributes to the

social and territorial cohesion of the European space.

We still live the vicissitudes of a globalised economy, with a number

significant from emerging countries to present high GDP growth rates,

accompanied by sharp increases in the consumption of raw materials, and that in the sector

agricultural if they have translated into imbalances between supply and demand for goods

food, contributing to a spectacular inflation of the same.

The CAP 'health check' becomes therefore urgent, and a requirement of the new

times, in a European Union to 27, for the CAP to remain a policy of the

present and from the future, able to evaluate your instruments and test the respective

health, identifying the adjustments needed to respond to its

goals and adapt to new challenges.

From this assessment also results in the understanding of the maintenance of some measures, the

its deepening, and also, the suppression of some others.

One of the most controversial and mediatically most discussed aspects of the CAP has to do

with the direct payments, of which the single payment scheme (RPU) is emphasized.

In 2003, direct payments were applied in the sector of arable crops, das

beef and sheep meat, and dairy products, and in 2004, for the olive oil sectors,

of cotton and tobacco, and sugar sectors (2006), fruit and vegetables

(2007).

Direct aids have reshaping diverse forms, along the Agricultural Politics

Common, and they should naturally be the subject of adjustments today.

But it is appropriate to emphasize, at a time of redefinition of policies, that the

direct payments are indispensable, as a basic guarantee of income, no

only in the case of the failing market, as also for the supply of goods

public by farmers, and as compensation for the levels of environmental protection,

food security, traceability, and animal welfare.

But production-indexed aids, have had their time, and they are well known to their

consequences and disturbances. In the markets, in the environment, and later on in the own

income of the producers. Produce excess goods, without market, for the purpose of

allowance, how many times at an expense of the ecossiteme, is model with no return hypothesis.

Dissociating the aids from production, it seems to us without a doubt to correspond to a solution

better suited, through a model that maintains a base support, that allows for more

freedom to the farmer to orient himself towards market objectives, i.e., to produce

what you understand that the market will buy you and do not produce intensively because

there is a matching allowance, even if the product has no market.

But the total shutdown will be all the more correct to the extent that it uses a

instrument that obrives the farmer to be a true farmer and not a mere

owner. That is, the farmer should have to produce, create employment, to receive the

help. It will produce the goods you understand, the goods that correspond to your idea of

business.

CAP should contribute more and more to prevent degradation risks

environmental, ensure the supply of public goods expected by our societies,

since, through conditionality, support for producers now depends on the

respect of standards in the environment, public health, safety and quality

of the food and welfare of the animals.

The

It is also understood as very important the strengthening of the development policy

rural, the 2º pillar of the CAP. A reinforcement that contributes to the protection of the environment and the

rural landscapes, be a source of growth, employment and innovation in rural areas,

in particular in the mountain and outermost regions, depopulated or highly

dependent on agriculture.

Understood by this, the European Commission to propose a set of interim measures

that resulted from the " health examination " already mentioned, measures such that they want to

establish new specific rules, on subjects that are listed

community inserted in the following diplomas:

-Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of September 29, 2003, which

establishes common rules for direct support schemes in the framework of policy

common agricultural and establish certain support schemes for farmers,

-Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of October 22, 2007, which

establishes a common organization of agricultural markets and provisions

specific to certain agricultural products ("Single CMO" Regulation),

For its part, the European Parliament (EP), has been broadly debating the Proposal

of Council Regulation, " which sets out common rules for support schemes

direct to farmers within the framework of the common agricultural policy and establish certain

support schemes for farmers ", which Mrs. European Commissioner of Agriculture

presented, preparing for a debate and final approval in Plenary of the EP.

Having still taken into consideration the " PROTOCOL ON THE ROLE OF

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION ", published in the Journal

Official of the European Union on 12/16/2004, which is grounded in the desire to encourage

a greater participation of the National Parliaments in the activities of the European Union and

strengthen their ability to express their views on draft acts

European legislatures and other issues that for them may rewear special interest,

the Assembly of the Republic understand duty to take a position in the form of Project

of Resolution to be sent to the European Parliament, about this interim review of the CAP,

of vital importance for the future of sustainable Portuguese agriculture.

II

Taking all these desiderata into consideration, it matters to make the point of the situation of the

Reform of CAP 2003, appreciate the diagnosis contained in your "health check" and

contribute to a better fine-tuning of the instruments that the EP and the European Council

prepare to approve, of which it stands out:

1-Single payment scheme-RPU

Simplification. One of the priorities has been to improve and simplify legislation. The

PAC tried to varnish by this route by transferring most of the direct payments

to farmers for the single-payer scheme, managing to partially reduce the

bureaucracy. It is noted, however, that simplification is still very much needed,

both in the issue of conditionality, and in the partial shutdown.

Conditionality. The CAP reform of 2003 introduced conditionality in the RPU,

conditioning such payment to environmental legislation, safety of the

food and animal welfare.

Also in this field the simplification becomes important, needing better what is

priority in environmental matters, such as the water issue for example, and the conditions

environmental of agricultural land in production phase or not, and should still be included

as an element of conditionality the issue of hygiene and safety at the site of

work.

Dissociated Support. The payment of direct aid by values indexed to the historical

of 3 years of reference, chosen without prior knowledge of the farmer, constitutes

a bureaucratic, random measure, which in many cases penalises the farmer. The

passage to a territorial base model can make the system fairer,

especially if you are added the employment factor.

Supplementary payments. Granting Member States the possibility to use

up to 5% additional of its national maximum limits to finance insurance of

harvests and mutual funds, so as to ensure proper financing of the system

of risks and crises.

Modulation . With the reform of 2003, a mandatory modulation has been agreed for

all EU Member States-15, starting in 2005 a at a rate of 3%,

increased to 4% in 2006 and 5% as of 2007. A further introduction was also introduced

plateau of EUR 5000, below which no reduction is applied

direct payments.

Modulation is justifiable as an instrument of financing development

rural. The progressive modulation to be applied according to a progressive rate, has

also full justification since it is only fair that beneficiaries who receive the most

contribute to that goal.

It seems to us however that the limit in force of the 5000 euros should be reviewed and

updated upwards, as well as the creation of a maximum roof for the payment of

aid, given the competitive ability of organisations with a dimension to enjoy

direct aid of 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000 euro.

The criterion for redistribution of monies from the new progressive modulation,

is expected to be in line with what is applied to the mandatory modulation already in place.

Minimum limits. The Commission proposes the establishment of a minimum limit of

250€/ano or of 1ha from which small farmers are prevented from receiving

direct supports, invoking the high costs and the bureaucracy associated with the

processing of the supports.

It is incomprehensible this provision. Exclude small and very small farmers, the

great custodians of the environment and biodiversity, farmers of products

traditional, generally affections to varieties of endogenous genetic heritage, is a

unjustifiable error.

We are still adding to the fact that we are entering a new paradigm of goods production

essential food, to remain the rarefaction of supply in international markets,

which will inevitably bring, in less developed economies, the revaluation of the

small and very small family farming, as a producer of goods

for themselves and for the local community, and promoter of the maintenance of people in the

rural territories.

It is recalled that the farmers receiving up to 250 € represent about 31% of the

total universe to which corresponds to only 0.84% of the payments.

With all the administrative agility they will be able to spend equal amounts or

lower than 500€/ano, paid out of 2 in 2 years, with payment in the first year.

2-Common Market Organization

Mechanisms of Intervention in the Market . Which should be kept whenever it is

judged necessary, to provide security, to avoid speculation, and an abrupt low of the

prices, not least in some commercially more sensitive agricultural products, such as the

soft wheat, for example.

Suppression of the Withdrawal From Lands of Production . It is the situation of the market that the

advises. They should however be placed at the disposal of Member States

appropriate instruments to ensure that the current environmental benefits of withdrawal,

can be kept.

Milk Quotas . Its suppression constitutes one of the most polemical measures and the

same time, difficult, for the defence of national interests, in the context of the forums

Europeans, currently dominated by a liberalizing trend.

In 1984, milk quotas were introduced as a response to overproduction. The

current situation is different. The market has already experienced grace periods of

offer, and there are a significant number of countries that do not occupy their quota.

The Commission, giving as it acquired the end of quotas in 2015, by imperative

previously approved regulatory, suggests progressive transitional measures of

quota suppression so as to arrive at a market without quotas in 2015.

Given the specificities of the sector in our country, the constraints derived from the

higher context costs in our dairy regions, with no conditions for a

total mitigation, with particular emphasis on the Autonomous Region of the Azores, the attitude

should be another.

Monitor the evolution of the European and world dairy market, implement increases

of quota 1% per year, provided that the supply / demand ratio allows it to, in a way to avoid

disturbances in the sustainability of the Portuguese dairy sector, and finally make a

new point of the situation in 2010.

Private Storage. It's a measure that makes perfect sense given the randomness of the

market, support a storage mechanism that includes the milk powder, butter,

production of casein, as well as veal, and other meats, according to the

evolution of markets.

Restitution to Export of Cereals . Taking into consideration the current situation of the

market and the outlook for the coming years, it makes sense to suppress this subsidy,

as a way to strengthen the European supply, and solidarity with the

countries in development routes.

Management of Risks and Crises. The system of risks and crises proposed by the Commission rests

in crop insurance and mutualistic funds, being important for their character

preventative.

3-Rural Development Policy.

New Challenges. With budgetary limitations set until 2013, the reinforcement of the

appropriations allocated to rural development programmes will have to be fed to the

mandatory modulation.

Climate change, renewable energy, water management and biodiversity

should be mandatory references to accompany the enhancement of employability and the

rural social fabric in the development of rural territories, the funding of which should

come from the additional funds arising from the new modulation, plafonment, and the

new mechanism introduced in Article 68º.

Additional measures regarding the use of solar, wind and solar energy are still proposed

geothermal, improvement of waste management and reuse of materials, management of risks

of floods, promotion of innovation and transfer of knowledge.

Reinforcement to the First Installation of Young Farmers. Given the ageing of the

active agricultural population and the depopulation to which it is seen in many regions

european, and still taking into consideration the paradigm shift in the role that the

agriculture will play in the coming times, as an indispensable activity for

the production of increasingly scarce food goods, for the defence of the environment, of the

ecosystems and biodiversity, it is essential to attract youth to the production

agricultural, being adjusted to increase support for the first installation of young farmers.

III

Taking into consideration the above exposed, the Assembly of the Republic resolves, under

of the regimental and regulatory normatives in force, recommend to Parliament

European, which in the interim review of the CAP:

a) Valorize the respect for compliance with the standards of hygiene and safety in the

work, and the employability factor in the allocation of direct aid.

b) Isent of the application of the beneficiaries modulation receiving less than 7,000

euro, set a ceiling on direct aid allocation, and establish a

rate of progressive modulation indexed to the financial amount receivable.

c) Keep the criteria for redistribution of the monies resulting from the new

progressive modulation, similar to those that apply in modulation

mandatory

d) Keep the aid to farmers with less than 1 ha, or less than 250 € /

year.

e) Permits the retention up to 10% of the national envelopes by the States-

Members, to use in specific support programmes for sectors in

difficulty, and to transfer part of these monies to rural development

without recourse to co-financing.

f) Permits retention up to 5% of national envelopes to finance systems of

risk management and crises, and may transfer to the 2º pillar the monies

remnants, without co-financing.

g) Monitor the evolution of the dairy markets, increase the quotas by 1% per

year, if the offer ratio / seeks to recommend it, and prepare a reassessment of the

policy measures for the milk sector, for 2010.

h) Obrig Member States to use at least 50% of the monies

transferred from the 1º to the 2º pillar, in actions related to the new challenges:

climate change, biodiversity, renewable energy, resource management

water.

i) Eleve from 55,000 to 75,000 € the amount to be allocated for the installation of

young farmers ..

Lisbon, September 26, 2008

THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY