Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-06-Speech-1-138"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-06"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Maaelu arengu toetamine EAFRD kaudu⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050606.17.1-138"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-06-Speech-1-139⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Charlie McCreevy⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, jeg vil starte med at undskylde på vegne af min kollega, kommissær Fischer Boel. Hun er forsinket, men vil være her inden afslutningen af forhandlingen. Som konklusion kan jeg acceptere eller delvist acceptere nogle af de grundlæggende ændringsforslag i betænkningen. De øvrige ændringsforslag kan jeg ikke acceptere. Jeg ønsker at takke medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet endnu en gang for deres positive og konstruktive bidrag til europæisk landdistriktspolitik. Jeg vil først og fremmest takke fru Schierhuber og medlemmerne af Udvalget om Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter for deres store arbejde med denne betænkning. Udvalget vedtog betænkningen med 129 ændringsforslag. Jeg vil kun berøre nogle af hovedpunkterne. I henhold til nogle af ændringsforslagene blev minimumsprocentdelene for støtte til de tre prioriterede opgaver reduceret, den foreslåede støtte til Leader blev bibeholdt og reserven til Leader fjernet. Dette skulle give mere fleksibilitet til medlemsstaternes programmeringsprioriteter, og det er der helt klart behov for. Jeg bifalder også, at Europa-Parlamentet er enige om behovet for minimumssatser. Det er helt afgørende for sikringen af afbalancerede programmer, som er målrettet til de mange forskellige udfordringer i landdistrikterne. Kommissionen kan acceptere reduktionen af minimumssatserne. Men jeg mener, at reduktionen af prioriteret opgave III - forbedring af livskvaliteten i landdistrikterne og fremme af diversificeringen af den økonomiske aktivitet - fra 15 % til 8 % er for voldsom og vil påvirke den nødvendige balance mellem de prioriterede opgaver i negativ retning, dvs. ændringsforslag 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 og 118. Vi må endelig ikke glemme, at foranstaltningerne under prioriteret opgave III ved korrekt iværksættelse kan bidrage betydeligt til økonomisk vækst og jobskabelse i landdistrikterne. Det er helt klart i landmændenes og deres familiers interesse og i tråd med det, vi ønsker at opnå med Lissabon-strategien. Ved andre ændringsforslag kædes den strategiske og operationelle planlægning sammen, og rapporteringsprocedurerne reduceres til to rapporter for hele støtteperioden - ændringsforslag 34-41. Jeg er skeptisk, hvad angår det første punkt, da strategien vil gå forud for den operationelle planlægning. Jeg er dog indstillet på et kompromis om mindre strategisk overvågning - hvert andet år i stedet for en gang om året. Jeg ønsker at understrege, at omfattende overvågning er af afgørende betydning for ansvar og formidling over for Europas borgere af de fordele, som vores politik har for landbruget og landdistrikterne. Jeg kan i princippet acceptere de vigtigste ændringer til prioriteret opgave I - ændringsforslag 54, 63, 65 (delvist), 66 og 67. Ændringsforslagene omhandler forøgelse af støtte til unge landbrugere gennem subsidierede lån, krav om, at investeringerne skal være baseret på skovforvaltningsplaner for skovbrugsbedrifter over en vis størrelse, forøgelse af støtte til mikrovirksomheder til forarbejdning og markedsføring af landbrugsprodukter (i skovbrugssektoren vil støtten dog fortsat være begrænset til mikrovirksomheder), støtte til jordfordeling i forbindelse med infrastrukturer, hvor der hovedsageligt fokuseres på operationer, som har til formål at forbedre konkurrenceevnen, støtte til samarbejde mellem aktører i fødekæden og udveksling af bedste praksis og viden. Jeg vil nu berøre prioriteret opgave II, som omhandler ændringsforslag 73, 79 og dele af 69, 76 og 81. Kommissionen er i princippet indstillet på at acceptere eller delvist acceptere ændringsforslagene om bevaring af genetisk mangfoldighed, indførelse af betalinger i forbindelse med vandrammedirektivet, ikke at betragte krav til anvendelse af pesticider og gødning som supplerende krav, men som en del af de obligatoriske krav, en mere fleksibel fremgangsmåde i relation til forpligtelserne til opnåelse af miljøvenligt landbrug, berettigelse for områder med høj naturværdi blandt ikke-produktive investeringer og inddragelse af kriterier for indkomsttab for Natura 2000-betalinger i skovbrug. Endelig er nogle af ændringsforslagene vanskelige at acceptere af forskellige årsager. En række ændringsforslag er mere vidtrækkende end Kommissionens forslag og de eksisterende standarder, hvorved man risikerer at mindske de politiske virkninger. Andre ændringsforslag indeholder unødvendige specifikationer, der allerede indgår i mere generelle sammenhænge."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Zunächst möchte ich meine Kollegin, Kommissarin Fischer Boel, entschuldigen. Sie verspätet sich, wird aber vor Ende der Aussprache hier sein. Ich möchte den Mitgliedern des Europäischen Parlaments noch einmal für ihren positiven und konstruktiven Beitrag zur europäischen Politik zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums danken. Nun möchte ich Frau Schierhuber und den Mitgliedern des Ausschusses für Landwirtschaft und ländliche Entwicklung für ihre Arbeit zu diesem Bericht danken. Der Ausschuss hat den Bericht mit 129 Änderungsanträgen angenommen. Ich werde mich jetzt nur zu einigen wenigen grundlegenden Punkten äußern. Mit einigen Änderungsanträgen wurden die Mindestprozentsätze für die Finanzierung der drei Schwerpunktachsen gesenkt, die für LEADER vorgesehenen Mittel beibehalten und die Reserve für dieses Konzept gestrichen. Das sollte den Prioritäten für die Programmplanung der Mitgliedstaaten mehr Flexibilität verschaffen. Ich verstehe diese Notwendigkeit und begrüße zudem die Tatsache, dass das Europäische Parlament ebenfalls der Ansicht ist, dass Mindestprozentsätze erforderlich sind. Das ist unerlässlich, wenn wir ausgewogene Programme gewährleisten wollen, die der großen Vielfalt der Aufgaben in ländlichen Gebieten gerecht werden. Die Kommission ist bereit, die Kürzung der Mindestprozentsätze anzunehmen. Meiner Ansicht nach ist allerdings die Kürzung für die Schwerpunktachse 3 – Verbesserung der Lebensqualität und Diversifizierung der ländlichen Wirtschaft – von 15 auf 8 % zu stark und würde sich negativ auf das erforderliche Gleichgewicht zwischen den Schwerpunktachsen auswirken, d. h. Änderungsanträge 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 und 118. Es darf nicht vergessen werden, dass Maßnahmen unter Schwerpunktachse 3, korrekt angewandt, wesentlich zur Förderung des Wirtschaftswachstums und der Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen im ländlichen Raum beitragen könnten. Das ist eindeutig im Interesse unserer Landwirte und ihrer Familien und steht in engem Zusammenhang mit dem, was wir mit der Strategie von Lissabon erreichen wollen. Mit anderen Änderungsanträgen werden die strategische und operationelle Planung vereinigt und die Berichtsverfahren auf zwei Berichte für den gesamten Finanzierungszeitraum gekürzt – Änderungsanträge 34 bis 41. Was den ersten Punkt angeht, so bin ich skeptisch, da die Strategie der operationellen Planung vorausgehen würde. Ich bin aber bereit, einen Kompromiss einzugehen und die strategische Überwachung seltener durchzuführen, alle zwei Jahre anstatt jedes Jahr. Betonen möchte ich, dass eine solide Berichterstattung unerlässlich für die Rechenschaftspflicht sowie dafür ist, den Bürgern Europas zu erläutern, welchen Beitrag unsere Politik zur Landwirtschaft und zum ländlichen Raum leistet. Ich kann die wichtigsten Änderungsanträge zur Schwerpunktachse 1 im Grundsatz annehmen – das sind die Änderungsanträge 54, 63, 65 (teilweise), 66 und 67. Bei ihnen geht es um die Ausweitung der Unterstützung für Junglandwirte auf zinsengestützte Darlehen, die Bedingung, dass Waldbewirtschaftungspläne sich aus der Größe des Betriebs ergeben müssen, die Ausweitung der Beihilfe auf Betriebe einer bestimmten Mindestgröße zur Verarbeitung und Vermarktung von landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugnissen (im Forstsektor wird die Beihilfe allerdings weiterhin auf Kleinstunternehmen beschränkt sein), die Einbeziehung der Flurbereinigung in die mögliche Beihilfe für Infrastrukturen, die Konzentration überwiegend auf Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, die Unterstützung der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Wirtschaftsteilnehmern im Ernährungssektor und den Transfer von Fachwissen. Ich komme nun zu Schwerpunktachse 2, die die Änderungsanträge 73, 79 und Teile der Änderungsanträge 69, 76 und 81 betrifft. Die Kommission ist im Grundsatz bereit, die Änderungsanträge anzunehmen oder teilweise anzunehmen, bei denen es um Folgendes geht: die Einbeziehung der Erhaltung der genetischen Vielfalt, die Einbeziehung von Zahlungen im Zusammenhang mit der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, die Tatsache, dass die Anforderungen für die Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln und Düngemitteln nicht als Zusatz zu den verpflichtenden Anforderungen, sondern als Teil von diesen erachtet werden, einen flexibleren Ansatz bezüglich der Dauer von Agrarumweltverpflichtungen, die Eignung wertvoller Kulturlandschaften als nichtproduktive Investitionen und die Einbeziehung der Kriterien für Einkommensausfall in die Zahlungen im Rahmen von Natura 2000 in der Forstwirtschaft. Abschließend sei gesagt, dass einige der vorgelegten Änderungsanträge aus verschiedenen Gründen schwer annehmbar sind. Einige von ihnen gehen über den Geltungsbereich des Kommissionsvorschlags und die bestehenden Regelungen hinaus, sodass die Gefahr besteht, dass die politische Wirkung abgeschwächt wird. Wieder andere enthalten unnötige Konkretisierungen von Sachverhalten, die in breiter gefassten Konzepten bereits erfasst sind. Insgesamt kann ich einige der wesentlichen Änderungsanträge in Ihrem Bericht annehmen oder teilweise annehmen. Die übrigen Änderungsanträge sind für mich nicht annehmbar."@de⁹ ". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, επιτρέψτε μου ξεκινώντας να ζητήσω συγγνώμη εκ μέρους της συναδέλφου Επιτρόπου, κ. Fischer Boel. Έχει καθυστερήσει, αλλά θα είναι εδώ πριν από το τέλος της συζήτησης. Θέλω να ευχαριστήσω και πάλι τους βουλευτές του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου για τη θετική και εποικοδομητική συμβολή τους στην ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική για τις αγροτικές περιοχές. Θέλω να ξεκινήσω ευχαριστώντας την κ. Schierhuber και τα μέλη της Επιτροπής Γεωργίας και Ανάπτυξης της Υπαίθρου για την εργασία τους στην έκθεση αυτή. Η επιτροπή ενέκρινε την έκθεση με 129 τροπολογίες. Θα σχολιάσω ορισμένα μόνο από τα κυριότερα σημεία. Ορισμένες τροπολογίες μείωσαν τα ελάχιστα ποσοστά χρηματοδότησης για τους τρεις άξονες, διατήρησαν την προτεινόμενη χρηματοδότηση για το LEADER και κατήργησαν το αποθεματικό για την προσέγγιση αυτή. Αυτό θα πρέπει να προσδώσει μεγαλύτερη ευελιξία στον προγραμματισμό των προτεραιοτήτων των κρατών μελών. Κατανοώ αυτή την ανάγκη και επικροτώ το γεγονός ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο συμφωνεί με την ανάγκη για ελάχιστα ποσοστά. Αυτό είναι κρίσιμης σημασίας αν θέλουμε να διασφαλίσουμε ισορροπημένα προγράμματα τα οποία θα ανταποκρίνονται στο μεγάλο φάσμα προκλήσεων στις αγροτικές περιοχές. Η Επιτροπή είναι πρόθυμη να αποδεχτεί τη μείωση των ελάχιστων ποσοστών. Ωστόσο, θεωρώ ότι η μείωση για τον άξονα 3 –ποιότητα ζωής και διαφοροποίηση της αγροτικής οικονομίας– από 15% σε 8% είναι πολύ μεγάλη και θα έχει αρνητικές επιπτώσεις στην απαραίτητη ισορροπία μεταξύ των αξόνων. Αναφέρομαι στις τροπολογίες 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 και 118. Μην ξεχνάτε, παρακαλώ, ότι τα μέτρα του άξονα 3, αν χρησιμοποιηθούν σωστά, μπορούν να συμβάλουν σημαντικά στην προώθηση της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης και τη δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας στις αγροτικές περιοχές. Αυτό είναι σαφώς προς το συμφέρον των γεωργών μας και των οικογενειών τους και συνδέεται στενά με αυτό που θέλουμε να επιτύχουμε σύμφωνα με τη στρατηγική της Λισαβόνας. Άλλες τροπολογίες συνδέουν τον στρατηγικό και τον επιχειρησιακό σχεδιασμό και μειώνουν τις διαδικασίες εκπόνησης εκθέσεων σε δύο εκθέσεις για ολόκληρη της οικονομική περίοδο – τροπολογίες 34 έως 41. Είμαι διστακτικός ως προς το πρώτο σημείο, καθώς η στρατηγική θα πρέπει να προηγείται του επιχειρησιακού σχεδιασμού. Ωστόσο, είμαι έτοιμος να συμβιβαστώ σε μια μειωμένη συχνότητα της στρατηγικής παρακολούθησης, διετούς αντί για ετήσιας. Θα τόνιζα ότι η ενεργός εκπόνηση εκθέσεων είναι ουσιαστικής σημασίας για την υποχρέωση λογοδοσίας και για να εξηγήσουμε στους πολίτες της Ευρώπης τη συμβολή της πολιτικής μας στη γεωργία και τις αγροτικές περιοχές. Μπορώ καταρχήν να αποδεχτώ τις κύριες τροπολογίες για τον άξονα 1 – τροπολογίες 54, 63, 65 (εν μέρει), 66 και 67. Αφορούν την επέκταση της στήριξης προς τους νέους γεωργούς σε επιδοτούμενα δάνεια, την απαίτηση τα σχέδια δασικής διαχείρισης να είναι συνάρτηση του μεγέθους της εκμετάλλευσης, την επέκταση της στήριξης σε πάρα πολύ μικρές επιχειρήσεις για τη μεταποίηση και τη διάθεση στην αγορά γεωργικών προϊόντων (στον δασικό τομέα, ωστόσο, η στήριξη θα παραμείνει περιορισμένη στις πολύ μικρές επιχειρήσεις), την ένταξη του αναδασμού ως επιλέξιμη στήριξη για τις υποδομές, την κατά κύριο λόγο επικέντρωση σε πράξεις που στοχεύουν στη βελτίωση της ανταγωνιστικότητας, τη στήριξη για τη συνεργασία μεταξύ των φορέων στην αλυσίδα διατροφής και για τη μεταφορά γνώσης. Έρχομαι τώρα στον άξονα 2, που αφορά τις τροπολογίες 73, 79 και μέρη των τροπολογιών 69, 76 και 81. Η Επιτροπή είναι καταρχήν έτοιμη να αποδεχτεί ή να αποδεχτεί εν μέρει τροπολογίες που αφορούν: την ένταξη της διατήρησης της γενετικής ποικιλότητας, την ένταξη πληρωμών που συνδέονται με την οδηγία πλαίσιο για τα ύδατα, να μην θεωρήσει τις απαιτήσεις για τη χρήση φυτοφαρμάκων και λιπασμάτων ως συμπληρωματικές των υποχρεωτικών απαιτήσεων αλλά ως μέρος τους, μια περισσότερο ευέλικτη προσέγγιση όσον αφορά τη διάρκεια των αγροτοπεριβαλλοντικών δεσμεύσεων, την επιλεξιμότητα περιοχών υψηλής φυσικής αξίας μεταξύ των μη παραγωγικών επενδύσεων και την ένταξη κριτηρίων απώλειας εισοδήματος για τις πληρωμές σχετικά με το Natura 2000 στη δασοκομία. Τέλος, ορισμένες από τις προτεινόμενες τροπολογίες είναι δύσκολο να γίνουν αποδεκτές για διάφορους λόγους. Κάποιες από αυτές υπερβαίνουν το εύρος της πρότασης της Επιτροπής και των υφιστάμενων κανόνων, διακινδυνεύοντας συνεπώς να μετριάσουν τα αποτελέσματα της πολιτικής τους. Άλλες ορίζουν περιττές προδιαγραφές, οι οποίες περιλαμβάνονται ήδη σε πιο γενικές έννοιες. Συμπερασματικά, μπορώ να αποδεχτώ ή να αποδεχτώ εν μέρει ορισμένες από τις θεμελιώδεις τροπολογίες που προτείνει η έκθεσή σας. Τις υπόλοιπες τροπολογίες δεν μπορώ να τις αποδεχτώ."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, en primer lugar quiero pedir disculpas en nombre de mi colega la Comisaria Fischer Boel. Se ha retrasado, pero llegará antes de que termine el debate. Quiero dar de nuevo las gracias a los diputados al Parlamento Europeo por su aportación positiva y constructiva a la política rural europea. Quiero empezar dando las gracias a la señora Schierhuber y a los miembros de la Comisión de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural por su trabajo en este informe. La comisión parlamentaria ha adoptado el informe con 129 enmiendas. Comentaré solo algunos de los puntos más importantes. Algunas enmiendas reducían los porcentajes mínimos de financiación para los tres ejes, mantenían la financiación propuesta para la iniciativa LEADER y eliminaban la reserva destinada a este enfoque. Así habría más flexibilidad para las prioridades de programación de los Estados miembros. Entiendo esta necesidad y también agradezco que el Parlamento Europeo acepte la necesidad de unos porcentajes mínimos. Es esencial si queremos asegurar unos programas equilibrados que aborden la amplia variedad de retos que se nos plantean en las zonas rurales. La Comisión está dispuesta a aceptar la reducción de los porcentajes mínimos. Pero considero que la reducción del Eje III –calidad de vida y diversificación de la economía rural– de un 15 a un 8 % es excesiva, y afectaría negativamente al equilibrio necesario entre ejes, es decir, las enmiendas 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 y 118. Por favor, no olviden que las medidas del Eje III, si se utilizan correctamente, pueden contribuir de forma significativa a promover el crecimiento económico y la creación de puestos de trabajo en las zonas rurales. Esto beneficiará claramente a nuestros agricultores y sus familias, y está estrechamente vinculado con lo que queremos conseguir con la Estrategia de Lisboa. Otras enmiendas agrupan la planificación estratégica y operativa y reducen los procedimientos de información a dos informes para todo el período financiero; se trata de las enmiendas 34 a 41. Soy escéptico respecto al primer punto, porque la estrategia precedería a la planificación operativa. Sin embargo, estoy dispuesto a llegar a un compromiso respecto a la reducción de la frecuencia del seguimiento estratégico para que sea bianual en vez de anual. Quiero resaltar que un buen sistema de informes es esencial para la responsabilidad y para explicar a los ciudadanos de Europa la aportación de nuestra política a la agricultura y al ámbito rural. En principio, puedo aceptar las principales enmiendas al Eje I: las enmiendas 54, 63, 65 (en parte), 66 y 67. Se refieren a la ampliación de las ayudas a agricultores jóvenes para el acceso a préstamos subvencionados, la necesidad de que los planes de gestión forestal se elaboren según las dimensiones de la propiedad, la ampliación de la ayuda a las empresas más pequeñas para el procesamiento y la comercialización de productos agrícolas (en el sector forestal, sin embargo, la ayuda seguirá limitada a las microempresas), la inclusión de la reparcelación en los candidatos a la ayuda para infraestructuras, centrada predominantemente en operaciones destinadas a mejorar la competitividad, y la ayuda a la cooperación entre agentes de la cadena alimentaria y para la transferencia de conocimientos. Paso ahora al Eje II, al que se refieren las enmiendas 73, 79 y partes de la 69, 76 y 81. La Comisión está en principio dispuesta a aceptar total o parcialmente enmiendas sobre: la inclusión de la conservación de la diversidad genética, la inclusión de los pagos vinculados a la Directiva Marco del Agua, no considerar los requisitos para el uso de pesticidas y fertilizantes como requisitos adicionales a los obligatorios, sino como parte de ellos, un planteamiento más flexible respecto a la duración de los compromisos agroambientales, la inclusión de las zonas de gran valor natural entre las inversiones no productivas, y la inclusión del criterio de pérdida de ingresos en los pagos de Natura 2000 al sector forestal. Finalmente, algunas de las enmiendas propuestas son difíciles de aceptar por diversos motivos. Varias de ellas van más allá del ámbito de la propuesta de la Comisión y las normas vigentes, con lo que corremos el riesgo de diluir sus efectos políticos. Otras establecen especificaciones innecesarias que ya están incluidos en conceptos más generales. En resumen, puedo aceptar total o parcialmente algunas de las enmiendas fundamentales propuestas en su informe. Las demás enmiendas no las puedo aceptar."@es²⁰ "Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, sallikaa minun aluksi esittää pahoitteluni kollegani Fischer Boelin puolesta. Hän myöhästyy mutta ehtii kyllä paikalle ennen keskustelun päättymistä. Haluan jälleen kiittää Euroopan parlamentin jäseniä myönteisestä ja rakentavasta panoksesta eurooppalaiseen maaseutualueita koskevaan politiikkaan. Haluan aloittaa kiittämällä jäsen Schierhuberia sekä maatalouden ja maaseudun kehittämisen valiokunnan jäseniä kaikesta tämän mietinnön hyväksi tekemästään työstä. Mietintöön hyväksyttiin valiokunnassa 129 tarkistusta, joista kommentoin vain muutamia tärkeimpiä. Osassa tarkistuksista vähennettiin kolmen toimintalinjan vähimmäisrahoitusosuuksia, säilytettiin ennallaan Leader-ohjelmaa varten ehdotetut määrärahat ja poistettiin kyseistä ohjelmaa koskeva varaus. Näiden tarkistusten tarkoituksena on antaa jäsenvaltioille enemmän joustovaraa ohjelmoinnin painopistealueiden määrittämisessä. Ymmärrän tämän tarpeen ja pidän myönteisenä myös sitä, että Euroopan parlamentti on komission kanssa samaa mieltä vähimmäisrahoitusosuuksien tarpeellisuudesta. Tämä on ratkaisevaa, jos haluamme varmistaa tasapainoiset ohjelmat, joilla pyritään vastaamaan maaseutualueiden moninaisiin haasteisiin. Komissio on valmis hyväksymään vähimmäisrahoitusosuuksien supistamisen. Toimintalinjaa 3 eli elämänlaadun parantamista maaseutualueilla ja taloudellisen toiminnan monipuolistamista koskevan rahoitusosuuden supistaminen 15 prosentista 8 prosenttiin on kuitenkin mielestäni liian suuri muutos, jolla olisi kielteinen vaikutus välttämättömään toimintalinjojen väliseen tasapainoon. Tämä koskee siis tarkistuksia 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 ja 118. Älkää unohtako, että toimintalinjaan 3 kuuluvat toimet voivat oikein toteutettuina edistää merkittävästi talouskasvua ja työpaikkojen syntymistä maaseutualueilla. Tämä on selkeästi viljelijöidemme ja heidän perheidensä etujen mukaista ja liittyy läheisesti Lissabonin strategiassa asettamiimme tavoitteisiin. Toisissa tarkistuksissa yhdistetään strategiasuunnitelmat ja kehittämisohjelmat sekä vähennetään laadittavien kertomusten määrää kahteen kertomukseen koko budjettikauden osalta. Tätä käsitellään tarkistuksissa 34–41. Suhtaudun ensiksi mainittuun epäilevästi, sillä strategiasuunnitelmalla olisi suurempi painoarvo kuin maaseudun kehittämisohjelmilla. Olen kuitenkin valmis tekemään myönnytyksiä kansallisten strategiasuunnitelmien harvennetun seurannan osalta ja hyväksymään kaksivuotisen kertomuksen vuosittaisen sijasta. Korostan, että säännöllisellä kertomusten laadinnalla on erittäin keskeinen merkitys vastuussa ja siinä, että Euroopan kansalaisille selitetään, miten politiikkamme edistää maataloutta ja maaseutualueiden kehitystä. Voin periaatteessa hyväksyä toimintalinjaa 1 koskevat tärkeimmät tarkistukset, nimittäin tarkistukset 54, 63, 65 (osittain), 66 ja 67. Niissä käsitellään seuraavia seikkoja: nuorille viljelijöille annettavan tuen laajentamista koskemaan korkotuettuja lainoja; vaatimusta, jonka mukaan metsänhoitosuunnitelmien on perustuttava metsäalueen kokoon; maataloustuotteiden jalostukseen ja kaupan pitämiseen annettavan tuen myöntämistä mikro- ja pienyrityksille (metsätaloustuotannon tapauksessa tuki kuitenkin rajoitetaan mikroyrityksiin); hajanaisten maatilojen yhdistämisen sisällyttämistä tukikelpoisiin infrastruktuurin tukitoimiin, joissa keskitytään pääasiassa kilpailukyvyn parantamiseen tähtääviin toimiin, sekä elintarvikeketjun toimijoiden yhteistyön ja keskinäisen tiedonkulun tukemista. Tarkastelen seuraavaksi toimintalinjaa 2, jota käsitellään tarkistuksissa 73 ja 79 ja osittain tarkistuksissa 69, 76 ja 81. Komissio on periaatteessa valmis hyväksymään kokonaan tai osittain tarkistukset, jotka koskevat: geneettisen monimuotoisuuden säilyttämisen ja vesipuitedirektiiviin liittyvien maksujen sisällyttämistä asetukseen; kasvinsuojeluaineiden ja lannoitteiden käyttöä koskevien vaatimusten sisällyttämistä pakollisiin vaatimuksiin; joustavampaa lähestymistapaa maatalouden ympäristösitoumusten kestoon; korkean luonnonarvon alueiden tukikelpoisuutta tuottamattomien investointien osalta sekä tulonmenetyksiä koskevan kriteerin sisällyttämistä metsäteollisuudelle Natura 2000 -ohjelmasta suoritettaviin maksuihin. Totean lopuksi, että komission on vaikea hyväksyä joitakin ehdotetuista tarkistuksista eri syistä. Muutamat näistä tarkistuksista menevät komission ehdotusta ja olemassa olemia normeja pidemmälle ja uhkaavat näin heikentää niiden vaikutusta asianomaiseen politiikkaan. Toisissa taas tehdään tarpeettomia täsmennyksiä, jotka sisältyvät jo yleisempiin käsitteisiin. Päätän puheenvuoroni toteamalla, että voin hyväksyä kokonaan tai osittain joitakin mietinnössänne esitettyjä keskeisiä tarkistuksia. Muita tarkistuksia en sitä vastoin voi hyväksyä."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, tout d’abord, permettez-moi d’excuser ma collègue commissaire, Mme Fischer Boel. Elle a été retardée, mais elle sera présente avant la fin du débat. Je voudrais remercier une nouvelle fois les députés européens pour leur contribution positive et constructive à la politique rurale européenne. Je voudrais commencer par remercier Mme Schierhuber et les membres de la commission de l’agriculture et du développement rural pour leur travail sur ce rapport. La commission de l’agriculture et du développement rural a adopté le rapport avec 129 amendements. Je ne commenterai que les quelques points importants. Certains amendements visent à réduire les pourcentages minimums de financement pour les trois axes, à maintenir le financement proposé pour l’initiative Leader et à éliminer la réserve pour cette approche. Grâce à cela, les États membres devraient bénéficier d’une plus grande souplesse pour choisir leurs priorités de programmation. Je comprends ce besoin et je me réjouis également du fait que le Parlement européen acquiesce à la nécessité des pourcentages minimums. Ce point est crucial si nous voulons garantir des programmes équilibrés qui répondent aux divers défis rencontrés par les régions rurales. La Commission est prête à accepter la réduction des pourcentages minimums. Toutefois, j’estime que la réduction s’appliquant à l’axe 3 - qualité de vie et diversification de l’économie rurale - de 15% à 8% est trop grande et va influencer négativement l’équilibre nécessaire entre les axes, c’est-à-dire les amendements 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 et 118. N’oubliez pas que les mesures prévues à l’axe 3, si elles sont appliquées correctement, pourraient nettement favoriser la croissance économique et la création d’emplois en milieu rural. Cela va clairement dans l’intérêt de nos agriculteurs et de leur famille et cet enjeu est étroitement lié aux objectifs que nous nous sommes fixés dans le cadre de la stratégie de Lisbonne. D’autres amendements ont pour but de rassembler les planifications stratégique et opérationnelle et de réduire la procédure de rapport à deux rapports pour l’ensemble de la période financière (amendements 34 à 41). Je suis sceptique quant au premier point, car la stratégie précède la planification opérationnelle. Néanmoins, je veux bien faire un compromis quant à la fréquence du suivi stratégique qui serait biannuel au lieu d’annuel. J’insiste sur le fait qu’une procédure de rapport solide est essentielle pour notre responsabilité financière et pour expliquer aux citoyens européens la contribution de notre politique à l’agriculture et au développement rural. Je peux accepter en principe les principaux amendements relatifs à l’axe 1, à savoir les amendements 54, 63, 65 (en partie), 66 et 67. Ils concernent l’extension des aides en faveur des jeunes agriculteurs aux prêts bonifiés, l’exigence selon laquelle les plans de gestion des forêts doivent être fonction de la superficie des propriétés, l’extension des aides aux petites entreprises pour le traitement et la commercialisation des produits agricoles (cependant, dans le secteur de la sylviculture, les aides resteront limitées aux micro-entreprises), l’inclusion du remembrement dans les aides éligibles en matière d’infrastructures, l’insistance sur les opérations destinées à améliorer la compétitivité, le soutien à la coopération entre les acteurs de la chaîne agro-alimentaire et le transfert de savoir. Passons à présent à l’axe 2, qui est visé par les amendements 73, 79 et certaines parties des amendements 69, 76 et 81. La Commission est en principe prête à accepter entièrement ou partiellement les amendements portant sur les points suivants: l’inclusion de la préservation de la diversité génétique, l’inclusion des paiements liés à la directive-cadre sur l’eau, la prise en considération des exigences relatives à l’utilisation des pesticides et des fertilisants non pas comme des exigences s’ajoutant aux exigences obligatoires mais faisant partie de celles-ci, une approche plus souple concernant la durée des engagements agro-environnementaux, l’éligibilité des zones naturelles de grande valeur aux investissements non productifs et l’inclusion de critères de perte de revenus pour les paiements Natura 2000 en sylviculture. Enfin, certains amendements proposés sont difficilement acceptables pour diverses raisons. Certains d’entre eux vont au-delà de la portée de la proposition de la Commission et des normes existantes, risquant ainsi de diluer leurs effets politiques. D’autres apportent des précisions inutiles qui figurent déjà dans des concepts plus généraux. En conclusion, je peux accepter ou partiellement accepter certains amendements fondamentaux suggérés dans votre rapport. En revanche, d’autres amendements sont inacceptables."@fr⁸ "Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, innanzitutto vi porgo le scuse della collega, la signora Commissario Fischer Boel che è in ritardo, ma che arriverà prima della fine del dibattito. Desidero rinnovare i ringraziamenti ai deputati al Parlamento europeo per il loro contributo positivo e costruttivo alla politica rurale comunitaria. Per cominciare voglio ringraziare l’onorevole Schierhuber ed i membri della commissione per l’agricoltura e lo sviluppo rurale per tutto il lavoro che hanno profuso nella relazione. La commissione ha adottato la relazione con 129 emendamenti. Ne commenterò solo alcuni che riguardano i punti più salienti. In sostanza si punta a ridurre le percentuali minime di finanziamento per i tre assi, è stato confermato il finanziamento proposto per il programma LEADER, mentre si vuole abolire la riserva per il relativo approccio. In questo modo, si conferirà una maggiore flessibilità alle priorità di programmazione degli Stati membri. Comprendo questa esigenza e sono lieto che il Parlamento europeo sottoscriva la necessità di fissare percentuali minime. Si tratta di un fattore cruciale, se vogliamo programmi veramente equilibrati, atti a fronteggiare il vasto spettro di sfide che si profilano per le zone rurali. La Commissione è disposta ad accettare la riduzione delle percentuali minime. Tuttavia, ritengo eccessiva la riduzione dell’asse prioritario 3 – qualità della vita e diversificazione economica – che passerebbe dal 15 all’8 per cento, pregiudicando quindi il necessario equilibrio tra gli assi; mi riferisco, in particolare, agli emendamenti nn. 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 e 118. Non dobbiamo dimenticare che le misure previste dall’asse prioritario 3, se applicate correttamente, potrebbero contribuire in maniera significativa a promuovere la crescita economica e la creazione di posti di lavoro nelle zone rurali. Chiaramente i risultati auspicati sono nell’interesse degli agricoltori e delle loro famiglie e sono strettamente correlati alle ambizioni dettate dalla Strategia di Lisbona. Altri emendamenti sono tesi a limitare la pianificazione strategica ed operativa e a ridurre le procedure di rendicontazione a due relazioni per l’intero periodo finanziario, mi riferisco agli emendamenti dal n. 34 al n. 41. Nutro un certo scetticismo in merito al primo punto, in quanto la pianificazione strategica deve necessariamente precedere la pianificazione operativa. Tuttavia, sono aperto al compromesso e potrei accettare che sia ridotta la frequenza del monitoraggio strategico, portandola ad una scadenza biennale anziché annuale. Desidero sottolineare che una solida rendicontazione è essenziale per stabilire i rapporti di responsabilità e per spiegare ai cittadini europei il contributo della nostra politica a favore dell’agricoltura e delle zone rurali. Accolgo gli emendamenti principali all’asse prioritario 1: gli emendamenti nn. 54, 63, 65 (in parte), 66 e 67. Essi prevedono che sia esteso il sostegno per i giovani agricoltori ai prestiti agevolati, che i piani di gestione forestale siano elaborati in funzione delle dimensioni dell’azienda, che sia esteso il sostegno alle piccole imprese che operano nel settore della trasformazione e della commercializzazione di prodotti agricoli (nel settore forestale, però, il sostegno rimane limitato alle microimprese), che la ripartizione del sostegno ammissibile sia esteso alle infrastrutture, con particolare attenzione per le operazioni tese a migliorare la competitività, ed è previsto il sostegno alla cooperazione tra attori nella catena alimentare e per il trasferimento di conoscenze. Passo poi all’asse prioritario 2, su cui vertono gli emendamenti n. 73, 79 e in parte gli emendamenti nn. 69, 76 e 81. In linea di principio la Commissione è disposta ad accogliere in tutto o in parte gli emendamenti che riguardano l’inclusione della conservazione della diversità genetica, dei pagamenti collegati alla direttiva quadro in materia di acque, la diversa considerazione dei requisiti sull’uso dei pesticidi e dei fertilizzanti non come requisiti supplementari bensì all’interno dei requisiti obbligatori, un approccio più flessibile verso la durata degli impegni agricolo-ambientali, l’ammissibilità dei luoghi di alto pregio naturale per gli investimenti non produttivi e l’inclusione del criterio della perdita di reddito per i pagamenti di Natura 2000 in campo forestale. Infine per varie ragioni risulta difficile accogliere una parte degli emendamenti presentati. Alcuni trascendono il campo d’azione della proposta della Commissione e delle norme vigenti, quindi si innescherebbe il rischio di annacquarne le ricadute politiche. Altri prevedono specificazioni superflue che sono già comprese in concetti più generali. Per concludere, accogliamo in tutto o in parte alcuni degli emendamenti principali presentati nella relazione, mentre respingiamo gli altri."@it¹² "Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@lv¹³ "Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil allereerst mijn collega-commissaris, mevrouw Fischer Boel, excuseren. Zij komt wat later, maar nog wel voordat dit debat is beëindigd. Ik dank de leden van het Europees Parlement nogmaals voor hun positieve, opbouwende inbreng in het Europese plattelandsbeleid. Ik dank mevrouw Schierhuber en de leden van de Commissie landbouw en plattelandsontwikkeling voor al het werk dat zij hebben verricht om dit verslag tot stand te brengen. De commissie heeft het verslag met 129 amendementen goedgekeurd. Ik zal mij in mijn commentaar beperken tot enkele van de belangrijkste punten. Als gevolg van sommige amendementen worden de minimumpercentages voor de financiering van de drie zwaartepunten verlaagd, wordt de voorgestelde financiering voor Leader gehandhaafd en wordt de reserve voor de Leader-aanpak geschrapt. Op die manier zouden de lidstaten over meer flexibiliteit moeten komen te beschikken bij het stellen van prioriteiten voor hun programmering. Ik heb daar begrip voor en ik ben blij dat het Europees Parlement begrip heeft voor de wenselijkheid van minimumpercentages. Die zijn namelijk onontbeerlijk voor het tot stand brengen van evenwichtige programma’s waarmee we de uiteenlopende uitdagingen in landelijke gebieden het hoofd kunnen bieden. De Commissie is bereid akkoord te gaan met een verlaging van de minimumpercentages. Ik ben echter van oordeel dat de verlaging voor zwaartepunt 3 – verhoging van de levenskwaliteit in de landelijke gebieden en bevordering van de economische diversifiëring – van 15 procent naar 8 procent te groot is en het noodzakelijke evenwicht tussen de zwaartepunten te zeer zou verstoren. Ik heb het dan over de amendementen 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 en 118. Laten we niet vergeten dat een juiste uitvoering van de in verband met zwaartepunt 3 te nemen maatregelen aanmerkelijk zou kunnen bijdragen tot de bevordering van economische groei en werkgelegenheid in landelijke gebieden. Dat is duidelijk in het belang van onze boeren en hun gezinnen en hangt nauw samen met onze doelstellingen in het kader van de Lissabon-strategie. De amendementen 34 tot en met 41 beogen het samenbrengen van de strategische en operationele planning en het terugbrengen van het aantal rapportageprocedures tot twee verslagen voor de hele financiële periode. Over het eerste punt heb ik zo mijn twijfels, aangezien de strategie vooraf zou gaan aan de operationele planning. Ik ben echter wel bereid om concessies te doen door het strategisch toezicht tweejaarlijks in plaats van jaarlijks te laten plaatsvinden. Ik zou willen benadrukken dat een degelijke rapportage essentieel is om verantwoording te kunnen afleggen en om aan de Europese burgers de positieve effecten van ons beleid op de landbouw en landelijke gebieden uit te leggen. In beginsel kan ik meegaan met de belangrijkste amendementen op zwaartepunt 1 – de amendementen 54, 63, 65 (gedeeltelijk), 66 en 67. Die betreffen de uitbreiding van steun aan jonge boeren naar gesubsidieerde leningen, de voorwaarde dat bosbeheersplannen betrekking moeten hebben op bosarealen van een bepaalde omvang, de uitbreiding van steun aan micro- en kleine ondernemingen naar middelgrote ondernemingen voor de veredeling en verkoop van landbouwproducten (in de bosbouw blijft de steun echter beperkt tot micro-ondernemingen), de opname van herverkaveling in de lijst van infrastructuren waaraan steun kan worden verleend, waarbij de aandacht vooral uitgaat naar maatregelen die een groter concurrentievermogen beogen, en steun voor de samenwerking tussen actoren in de levensmiddelenketen en voor de overdracht van kennis. Dat brengt me bij zwaartepunt 2, waarop de amendementen 73, 79 en delen van de amendementen 69, 76 en 81 betrekking hebben. De Commissie is in beginsel bereid tot aanvaarding of gedeeltelijke aanvaarding van de amendementen over: de opname van de instandhouding van genetische verscheidenheid; de opname van betalingen in verband met de kaderrichtlijn water; het inbouwen van de eisen gesteld aan het gebruik van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en meststoffen in de dwingende normen in plaats van ze als aanvulling daarop te beschouwen; een flexibeler benadering van de periode voor verbintenissen inzake agromilieumaatregelen; het als niet-productieve investering in aanmerking nemen van gebieden die met het oog op natuurbescherming van groot belang zijn; en de opname van inkomensverliescriteria voor Natura 2000-betalingen in de bosbouw. Ten slotte zijn sommige van de voorgestelde amendementen om uiteenlopende redenen moeilijk te accepteren. Een aantal valt buiten het bereik van het Commissievoorstel en de bestaande normgeving, waardoor het risico bestaat dat de doelmatigheid van het beleid wordt ondermijnd. Andere amendementen bevatten specificaties die overbodig zijn omdat zij al zijn opgenomen in algemenere concepten. Al met al kan ik sommige van de fundamentele amendementen in uw verslag geheel of gedeeltelijk accepteren. De andere amendementen kan ik niet accepteren."@nl³ "Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, gostaria de começar por pedir desculpa em nome da minha colega, Senhora Comissária Fischer Boel, que se atrasou, mas que chegará antes de o debate terminar. Quero agradecer, mais uma vez, aos deputados do Parlamento Europeu o seu contributo positivo e construtivo para a política rural europeia. Em primeiro lugar, quero agradecer à senhora deputada Schierhuber e aos membros da Comissão da Agricultura e do Desenvolvimento Rural por todo o trabalho que dedicaram a este relatório. A comissão adoptou o relatório com 129 alterações. Irei falar apenas sobre alguns dos pontos principais. Algumas alterações reduzem as percentagens mínimas dos orçamentos para os três eixos prioritários, mantêm o orçamento proposto para a abordagem LEADER, e suprimem a reserva para a mesma. Isto deverá conferir maior flexibilidade às prioridades de programação dos Estados-Membros. Compreendo a necessidade de o fazer e saúdo, também, o facto de o Parlamento Europeu concordar que é necessário fixarem-se percentagens mínimas. Isto é fundamental se quisermos ter programas equilibrados que vão ao encontro da grande diversidade de desafios que se apresentam às zonas rurais. A Comissão está disposta a aceitar a redução das percentagens mínimas. Contudo, penso que a redução proposta para o eixo 3 - qualidade de vida e diversificação da economia rural -, de 15% para 8%, é demasiado grande e iria afectar negativamente o equilíbrio necessário entre os eixos - refiro-me às alterações 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 e 118. Peço-vos para não esquecerem que as medidas relativas ao eixo 3, a serem correctamente utilizadas, podem contribuir significativamente para promover o crescimento económico e a criação de empregos nas zonas rurais. Isto é nitidamente do interesse dos nossos agricultores e das suas famílias e está estreitamente ligado àquilo que pretendemos alcançar no âmbito da estratégia de Lisboa. Outras alterações visam conjugar o planeamento estratégico e operacional e reduzir os procedimentos de prestação de informação a dois relatórios para todo o período de programação - alterações 34 a 41. Tenho dúvidas quanto ao primeiro ponto, uma vez que a estratégia iria preceder o planeamento operacional. No entanto, estou disposto a transigir e a aceitar uma redução da periodicidade da monitorização estratégica, que passará a ser bianual em vez de anual. Gostaria de sublinhar que um sistema de prestação de informação sólido é essencial para garantir a prestação de contas e para explicar aos cidadãos europeus qual é o contributo da nossa política para a agricultura e as zonas rurais. Posso aceitar, em princípio, as principais alterações ao eixo 1 – alterações 54, 63, 65 (em parte), 66 e 67. Dizem respeito ao alargamento do apoio aos jovens agricultores de modo a incluir a bonificação de juros de empréstimos, ao requisito de que os planos de gestão florestal sejam uma função da dimensão da exploração, ao alargamento do apoio concedido a empresas de dimensão mínima para a transformação e comercialização de produtos agrícolas (continuando, porém, o apoio no sector florestal a restringir-se às microempresas), a tornar o apoio a infra-estruturas extensivo ao emparcelamento, visando predominantemente as operações destinadas a melhorar a competitividade, o apoio à cooperação entre os intervenientes na cadeia alimentar e a transferência de conhecimentos. Passo agora ao eixo 2, a que se referem as alterações 73, 79 e partes da 69, 76 e 81. A Comissão pode aceitar, em princípio ou em parte as alterações sobre o seguinte: inclusão da conservação da diversidade genética, inclusão dos pagamentos ligados à directiva-quadro relativa à água, proposta de não se considerarem os requisitos relativos à utilização de pesticidas e fertilizantes como um complemento dos requisitos obrigatórios mas sim como parte dos mesmos, adopção de uma abordagem mais flexível em relação ao período de assunção de compromissos agro-ambientais, inclusão das zonas naturais importantes nos investimentos não produtivos, e aplicação dos critérios de perda de receitas aos pagamentos previstos para a silvicultura no âmbito do NATURA 2000. Por último, algumas das alterações propostas são difíceis de aceitar por diversas razões. Algumas excedem o âmbito da proposta da Comissão e das normas existentes, havendo portanto o risco de diluírem os seus efeitos políticos. Outras propõem especificações desnecessárias que já estão incluídas em conceitos mais gerais. Concluindo, posso aceitar na íntegra ou em parte algumas das alterações fundamentais propostas no vosso relatório. Não posso aceitar as restantes."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate. I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy. I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report. The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas. The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy. Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas. I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge. I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry. Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts. In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Låt mig först be om ursäkt för min kollega Mariann Fischer Boels räkning. Hon är försenad, men kommer att vara här före slutet av debatten. Jag vill än en gång tacka parlamentsledamöterna för deras positiva och konstruktiva bidrag till EU:s landsbygdspolitik. Jag vill börja med att tacka Agnes Schierhuber och ledamöterna i utskottet för jordbruk och landsbygdens utveckling för allt deras arbete med betänkandet. Utskottet antog betänkandet med 129 ändringsförslag. Jag skall endast kommentera några av de viktigaste punkterna. Några av de föreslagna ändringarna är att sänka de lägsta stödsatserna för de tre prioriteringarna, bibehålla den föreslagna finansieringen av Leader och avskaffa reserven för detta initiativ. Detta bör ge medlemsstaterna större flexibilitet i fråga om programprioriteringarna. Jag förstår att detta behövs och jag välkomnar också att Europaparlamentet instämmer i att lägsta procentsatser är nödvändiga. Det är av avgörande betydelse om vi vill garantera väl avvägda program som är inriktade på alla de många olika utmaningarna på landsbygden. Kommissionen är beredd att godta en sänkning av de lägsta stödsatserna. Emellertid anser jag att sänkningen för prioritering 3 – livskvalitet och diversifiering av de ekonomiska verksamheterna på landsbygden – från 15 till 8 procent är för stor och skulle inverka negativt på den nödvändiga jämvikten mellan prioriteringarna, dvs. ändringsförslagen 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 och 118. Glöm inte bort att åtgärderna inom ramen för prioritering 3 kan bidra avsevärt till att främja den ekonomiska tillväxten och sysselsättningen på landsbygden om de genomförs på rätt sätt. Detta ligger naturligtvis i jordbrukarnas och deras familjers intresse och är nära kopplat till det som vi vill uppnå genom Lissabonstrategin. Andra ändringsförslag är att samla den strategiska och operativa planeringen och förenkla rapporteringen till två rapporter för hela finansieringsperioden – ändringsförslagen 34–41. Jag är skeptisk till den första punkten, eftersom den strategiska planeringen kommer före den operativa planeringen. Jag är emellertid beredd att kompromissa om en mindre frekvent strategisk övervakning: vart annat år i stället för varje år. Jag vill betona att en ordentlig rapportering är nödvändig för redovisningen och för att förklara för de europeiska medborgarna hur vår politik främjar jordbruket och landsbygden. Jag kan i princip acceptera de viktigaste ändringsförslagen när det gäller prioritering 1 – ändringsförslagen 54, 63, 65 (delvis), 66 och 67. Dessa ändringsförslag syftar till att utvidga stödet för unga jordbrukare till subventionerade lån, kräva att skogsbruksplaner skall upprättas beroende på företagets storlek, utvidga stödet till små företag för bearbetning och saluföring av jordbruksprodukter (i skogsbrukssektorn kommer stödet emellertid fortsättningsvis att begränsas till mikroföretag), infoga sammanläggning av skiften bland de åtgärder som berättigar till stöd för infrastruktur med fokusering främst på åtgärder som syftar till att förbättra konkurrenskraften samt att stödja samarbete mellan aktörer i livsmedelskedjan och kunskapsöverföring. Jag kommer nu till prioritering 2 och det rör sig om ändringsförslagen 73 och 79 samt delvis 69, 76 och 81. Kommissionen är i princip beredd att helt eller delvis godta ändringsförslagen om att införa stöd för bevarande av den genetiska mångfalden, att införa stöd relaterat till ramdirektivet om vatten, att inte betrakta kraven i fråga om bekämpningsmedel och gödningsmedel som ett tillägg till de gällande kraven utan som en del av dem, att införa ett mer flexibelt system när det gäller varaktigheten hos miljöåtaganden inom jordbruket, att införa stöd för områden med ett högt naturvärde som en ickeproduktiv investering och att införa inkomstförluster till följd av Natura 2000 som ett kriterium för stöd till skogsbruket. Några av ändringsförslagen, slutligen, är svåra att godta av olika anledningar. Ett antal av dem faller utanför tillämpningsområdet för kommissionens förslag och befintliga normer och riskerar därför att försvaga politikens effekter. Andra innehåller onödiga specificeringar som redan täcks av mer allmänna formuleringar. Sammanfattningsvis kan jag fullständigt eller delvis godta några av de grundläggande ändringsförslagen i betänkandet. Övriga ändringsförslag kan jag inte godta."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Charlie McCreevy,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4} "Member of the Commission"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4}