Read the untranslated law here: http://app.parlamento.pt/webutils/docs/doc.pdf?path=6148523063446f764c3246795a5868774d546f334e7a67774c336470626d6c7561574e7059585270646d467a4c316776644756346447397a4c334271636a4d344d7931594c6d527659773d3d&fich=pjr383-X.doc&Inline=false
DRAFT resolution No. 383/X "Recommends the European Parliament to adopt a set of measures to insert into the proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules for direct support scheme for farmers under the CAP and establishing certain support schemes for farmers" the common agricultural policy (Cap) is perhaps one of the more controversial EU policies because it is sometimes of inducing inequalities and injustices between countries, regions and farmers of Europe, but at the same time is one of the most important and necessary, given the diversity of territories, the differential of endogenous potentials in the countries of the Union, the diversity and specificity of productions, and the differences between the different organizational cultures. The longevity of the CAP proves its high dependence, their adaptability to serve a community in gradual growth, at a time of 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 supply, food quality, environmental sustainability, climate change, renewable energies, and the maintenance of a dynamic and diversified economy in rural areas, in line with the objectives reaffirmed in the Treaty of Lisbon, and to contribute to social and territorial cohesion of the European space.
We live the vicissitudes of a globalized economy, with a significant number of emerging countries to present high rates of GDP growth, accompanied by sudden increases in the consumption of raw materials, and that in the agricultural sector have translated into imbalances between supply and demand for food, contributing to a spectacular inflacionamento.
The "health check" of the CAP becomes so urgent, and a requirement of the new times, a European Union 27, so that the CAP will continue to be a policy of the present and the future, able to evaluate its instruments and test its operation, identifying the adjustments needed to meet its objectives and adapt to new challenges.
This evaluation is also understanding the maintenance of some measures, its deepening, and also, the abolition of some other. One of the most controversial and most discussed mediaticamente of the CAP's direct payments, which stresses the single payment scheme (SPS). In 2003, direct payments were applied in the sector of arable crops, beef and sheep meat, and milk products, and in 2004, for the sectors of oil, cotton and tobacco, and sugar sectors (2006), fresh fruit and vegetables (2007).
Direct aid have coated several ways, along the common agricultural Policy, and of course should be subject to adjustments. But it is appropriate to underline, in a time of redefinition of policies which direct payments are indispensable, as basic income guarantee, not only in the case of market failure, as well as for the supply of public goods by farmers and as compensation for the levels of environmental protection, food safety, traceability and animal welfare.
But indexed to aid production, had its time, and are well known the consequences and disturbances. In the markets, the environment, and later in its own producers ' incomes. Produce goods in excess, without market, with aim of subsidy, how many times at the expense of ecosystem model without chance of return.
Decoupling aid from production, it seems to us no doubt correspond to a more suitable solution, through a model that keeps a base support, allowing more freedom to the farmer for directions to market objectives, i.e. to produce what the market will buy and does not produce intensely because there is a corresponding allowance, even though the product has not market. But the total will be much more accurate to the extent that use an instrument requiring the farmer to be a real farmer and not a mere homeowner. That is, the farmer will have to produce, to create jobs, to receive the help. Will produce the goods, the goods that match your business idea.
The CAP should increasingly contribute to prevent the risks of environmental degradation, ensure the provision of public goods expected by our societies, since, through cross-compliance, support to producers now depends on the respect of standards relating to the environment, public health, food safety and quality and animal welfare. means as very important the strengthening of rural development policy, the second pillar of the CAP. A reinforcement that contributes to the protection of the environment and the countryside, is a source of growth, jobs and innovation in rural areas, particularly in mountain and outermost regions, depopulated or heavily dependent on farming.
Understand why the European Commission propose a set of interim measures that resulted from the "health check" already mentioned, they intend to establish new specific rules on matters listed in Community rules inserted in the following statutes: – 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 ,-Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation), for its part, the European Parliament, has been debating the proposal for a Council regulation, "establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers" , that European agriculture Commissioner presented, preparing for a debate and final approval in Plenary of the European Parliament.
With regard to the "PROTOCOL on the ROLE of NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS in the EUROPEAN UNION", published in the official journal of the European Union on 16.12.2004, which is based on the desire to encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the European Union and to enhance their ability to express their views on draft European legislative acts and other issues that may be of particular interest to them the Assembly of the Republic understands the duty to take a stand in the form of draft resolution to send to the European Parliament, on the mid-term review of the CAP, of vital importance to the future of a Portuguese sustainable agriculture.
(II) taking into account all these ambitions, it is important to take stock of the CAP reform 2003, enjoy the diagnosis contained in your health check and contribute to a better tuning of the instruments that the EP and the European Council are preparing to approve, that stands out: 1-single payment scheme – SPS Simplification. One of the priorities has been improving and simplifying legislation. The PAC tried to embark on this route by transferring most of the direct payments to farmers for the single payment scheme, managing to partially reduce the bureaucracy. It turns out however, that simplification is still very necessary, both on the issue of conditionality, as the partial shutdown.
Cross-compliance. The 2003 CAP reform introduced the conditionality in the SPS, making this payment to the legislation on the environment, food safety and animal welfare. Here too the simplification becomes important, need better what is a priority on environmental issues, such as the question of water for example, and the environmental conditions of agricultural land in production phase or not, being included as part of the conditionality issue of hygiene and safety in the workplace.
Decoupled Support. The payment of direct aid for indexed values the 3-year history, chosen without prior knowledge of a farmer, is a bureaucratic measure, random, which in many cases punishes the farmer. The move to a territorial base model can make the system more fair, especially if you are added the employment factor.
Supplementary payments. Give Member States the possibility to use up to 5% of their national ceilings additional to finance crop insurance and mutual funds to ensure adequate funding of the system of risks and crises.
Modulation. With the 2003 reform, it was agreed a compulsory modulation for all Member States of the EU-15, starting in 2005 at a rate of 3%, increased to 4% in 2006 and 5% from 2007. It was also introduced a level of 5000 euros, below which is not applied any reduction of direct payments. Modulation is justifiable as a means of financing rural development. The progressive modulation to apply according to a progressive rate, it also has full justification since it is just that most beneficiaries who receive more contribute to that objective. It seems however that the limit in force of 5000 euros should be revised and updated upwards, as well as the creation of a maximum ceiling for the payment of aid, given the competitive capacity of organizations to benefit from direct aid dimension of 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000 euros. The criteria for redistribution of funds from the new progressive modulation should be in line with what is applied to compulsory modulation already in place.
Minimum limits. The Commission proposes the establishment of a minimum threshold of £ 250/ano or 1 ha from which small farmers are prevented from receiving direct aid, citing the high costs and bureaucracy associated with the processing of aid. It is incomprehensible that provision. Delete small and very small farmers, the great guardians of the environment and biodiversity, farmers in traditional products, usually assigned to varieties of the endogenous gene, is an unjustifiable mistake. Furthermore, the fact that we are entering a new paradigm of production of essential food, keep the increasing scarcity of supply in international markets, what will inevitably, in less developed economies, the revaluation of family agriculture of small and of very small dimension, as a producer of goods for themselves and the local community, and promoting the maintenance of people in rural areas. It is recalled that farmers who receive up to € 250 represent about 31% of the total universe that matches only 0.84% of payments. With all the administrative agility can spend to pay amounts equal to or less than £ 500/ano, paid 2 years 2:00 pm, with payment in the first year.
2 – common organisation of the market intervention mechanisms in the market. That should be maintained whenever it is considered necessary, to provide security, to avoid speculation, and a low price, especially abrupt in some commercially more sensitive agricultural products such as wheat, for example.
Abolition of set-aside. Is the market that advises. Should however be made available to the Member States appropriate instruments to ensure that the environmental benefits of set-aside could be retained.
Milk Quotas. Their removal is one of the most controversial measures and at the same time, difficult, for the defence of national interests in the context of the European forums, dominated currently by a bearing trend. In 1984, milk quotas were introduced as a response to overproduction. The current situation is different. The market already has experienced periods of shortage of supply, and there is a significant number of countries that do not take up their share. The Commission, giving as acquired the end of quotas in 2015, by previously approved regulatory imperative, suggests gradual transitional measures of suppression of quotas, in order to reach a market without quotas in 2015. Given the specificities of the sector in our country, the constraints derived from context higher costs in our dairy regions, without conditions for a total mitigation, particularly in the autonomous region of the Azores, the attitude must be another. Monitor the evolution of European and world dairy market, implement quota increases 1% per year, since the offer/demand relationship permits, in order to avoid disturbances in Portuguese dairy sector sustainability, and finally make a new status in 2010.
Private Storage. It's a measure that makes perfect sense given the randomness of the market, support a storage engine that includes milk powder, butter, casein production, as well as beef and other meats, in accordance with the evolution of the markets.
Export refunds for Cereals. Taking into account the current market situation and Outlook for the coming years, it makes sense to delete this allowance as a way to strengthen European supplies, and of solidarity with developing countries.
Risk and crisis management. The risk and crisis system proposed by the Commission is based on the crop insurance and mutual funds, and it is important for its preventive nature.
3-Rural development policy.
New Challenges. With the budgetary constraints fixed until 2013, strengthening of the appropriations allocated to rural development programmes will have to be fed with the compulsory modulation. The climate change, renewable energies, water management and biodiversity should be mandatory references to monitor the strengthening of employability and the rural social fabric in the development of rural areas, whose funding should come from additional funds resulting from the new modulation, capping, and the new mechanism introduced in article 68. Are also proposed additional measures relating to the use of solar, wind and geothermal energy, improved waste management and reuse of materials, flood risk management, promotion of innovation and transfer of knowledge.
Strengthening to the first installation of young farmers. Given the ageing population and agricultural depopulation that is in many European regions, and even taking into consideration the paradigm shift in the role that agriculture will play in the near future, as an essential activity for the production of foodstuffs increasingly scarce, for the protection of the environment, ecosystems and biodiversity, it is essential to attract youth for agricultural production , being adjusted to increase the support for the first installation of young farmers.
(III) in view of the aforesaid, the Parliament decides, under the rules and regulations regulatory force, recommend to the European Parliament on the mid-term review of the CAP: a) Value respect for the compliance with the standards for hygiene and safety at work, and the employment factor in the allocation of direct aid. b) Exempts from the application of modulation beneficiaries who receive less than EUR 7,000, set a maximum allocation of direct aid and establish a progressive modulation rate pegged to the financial amount receivable. c) Keep the criteria for redistribution of funds resulting from the new progressive modulation, similar to those that apply in the compulsory modulation d) Keep the aid to farmers with less than 1 ha, or less than 250 euros/year. and Allow the retention until 10)% of the national envelopes by Member States, for use in specific programmes to support sectors in difficulty, and to transfer these funds to rural development without cofinancing. f) Allow the retention up to 5% of the national envelopes to fund systems of risk and crisis management, and may transfer to the 2nd pillar funds remaining, without co-financing. g) Monitor developments in dairy markets, increase in quotas of 1% per year, if the offer/wanted to advise you, and prepare a re-evaluation of policy measures for the milk sector for 2010. h) Requires the Member States to use at least 50% of the funds transferred from the 1st to the 2nd pillar, in actions related to the new challenges: climate change, biodiversity, renewable energies, water resources management. I) Raise of 55,000 to 75,000 euros the amount to be reserved for the installation of young farmers ...
Lisbon, September 26 2008 MEMBERS of the SOCIALIST PARTY
Search Translated Laws of Portugal