Local: The New Face of Food and Farming in America

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Local: The New Face of Food and Farming in America file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Local: The New Face of Food and Farming in America book. Happy reading Local: The New Face of Food and Farming in America Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Local: The New Face of Food and Farming in America at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Local: The New Face of Food and Farming in America Pocket Guide.

This is really just a compilation of the local food movement through many, many examples. It's a good introduction to the other side of industrial agriculture. Could be more in depth but that's another book. This is for browsing. Dec 23, Kenley Neufeld rated it it was amazing Shelves: Inspire yourself to understand food. Learn who the people are doing creative work around food.


  1. Local Foods;
  2. Hardest Hit.
  3. Embrace The Woman You Want To Become Love The Woman You Are Now!
  4. Guitar Works of Agustin Barrios Mangore, Vol. IV: 4 (Guitar Works of Augustin Barrios Mangore)!
  5. The Tale of Billy the Bit?
  6. Atlas of Regional Anesthesia E-Book (Expert Consult Title: Online + Print);
  7. Navigating Food Trends: A daily dilemna | Sustainable Business Network of Massachusetts.

Beautifully illustrated with engaging and informative text. Protecting our Planet. Books For rated it it was amazing Jan 27, Alexa rated it really liked it Jan 17, Liz rated it it was amazing Feb 01, Jan rated it liked it Apr 23, Celia rated it really liked it Dec 29, Mysteryfan rated it did not like it Sep 03, Barbi Gardiner rated it liked it Nov 20, Arne Van petegem rated it really liked it Jan 31, Craig Lutes rated it really liked it Aug 14, Sadie rated it it was ok Feb 05, AP rated it it was amazing Mar 19, Will Graham Tyler rated it really liked it Nov 28, Sylvia Walker rated it liked it Jun 01, Therese rated it liked it Oct 23, Rachel Mrugala rated it it was ok Feb 24, Melissa marked it as to-read Dec 28, Elizabeth Hills marked it as to-read Jan 01, Sarah added it Jan 04, Matt marked it as to-read Feb 02, Bridget marked it as to-read Mar 15, Zofia marked it as to-read Mar 17, Joanna marked it as to-read Mar 19, Jake Voit marked it as to-read Mar 21, Kay marked it as to-read Mar 24, Ayala marked it as to-read Mar 25, Sarah marked it as to-read Mar 31, Rebecca Haddaway marked it as to-read Apr 18, Shelby Briley marked it as to-read Jun 21, Peyton Proffitt marked it as to-read Jun 28, Lauren marked it as to-read Aug 06, Sara Figgins marked it as to-read Sep 02, Becky marked it as to-read Sep 16, Lisa added it Oct 08, Deidre marked it as to-read Oct 18, Phoebe Tran marked it as to-read Jan 15, Eileen marked it as to-read Feb 10, Val marked it as to-read Feb 17, Amanda marked it as to-read Apr 08, Stresses that part-time farmers and farmers drawing on mixed income must not be excluded;.

Calls on the Commission, moreover, to provide Member States with greater flexibility within the framework of agricultural State aid rules in order to encourage farmers to set up voluntary precautionary savings with a view to coping better with the upsurge in climate-driven and health risks, as well as economic crises;.

Calls however for the public goods provided by micro- and small farm enterprises, including their participation in co-operative and community endeavours, to be fairly rewarded;. Calls on the Member States to strive for better synergies between the CAP and other policies and funds such as the cohesion, structural and other investment funds, in order to create a multiplier effect for the rural areas;.

Notes that numerous villages and regions, despite their rural nature, remain for administrative reasons outside the scope of rural development programmes in some Member States, which puts them at a disadvantage;. Calls on the Member States to consider more flexible approaches in order not to harm these regions and the producers therein;. A smart, efficient, sustainable and fair CAP — delivering for farmers, citizens, rural areas and the environment.

Reminds the Commission that the objectives of the CAP laid down in Article 39 TFEU are to increase agricultural productivity, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, to stabilise markets, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices;.

Underlines the potential of technological innovations for a smart and efficient sector which delivers on sustainability, particularly as regards the efficient use of resources, and the monitoring of crop and animal health and the environment;. Calls for the CAP to facilitate and support the application of such innovations;. Considers that further market liberalisation and the reduction of protections for farmers that it entails would necessitate compensation for the agricultural sector and, in particular, for those farms facing competitive disadvantages — notably difficulties relating to agricultural land use or to their being located in mountainous areas — and that only such compensatory measures can ensure extensive agricultural land management and the preservation of the cultural landscape;.

Stresses that the CAP budget should be adapted to future needs and challenges, such as those arising from the impacts of Brexit and free trade agreements adopted by the EU with its main trading partners;. Points to the persistent disparities in development between rural areas in different regions and Member States and therefore considers that cohesion criteria should continue to play an important role in the distribution of second-pillar funds between Member States;.

Underlines the importance of allocating a strong budget to Pillar II rural development policy , within the overall CAP budget;. Considers that farmers need to be supported in the transition to full sustainability;. Considers that the development of new EU policies and objectives must not be to the detriment of a successful CAP and its resources;. Acknowledges the current uncertainty which exists around the future CAP budget;. Considers that new rural development lines which are not matched with extra funding should be avoided;. Believes that more targeted support is necessary for diverse agricultural systems, especially small and medium family farms and young farmers, in order to strengthen regional economies through a productive agricultural sector in economic, environmental and social terms; considers that this can be achieved through a compulsory redistributive higher support rate for the first hectares of a holding, linked to the average size of a holding in the Members States, in view of the wide range of farm sizes across the EU; stresses that support for larger farms should be degressive, reflecting economies of scale, with mandatory capping to be decided at European level, and flexible criteria to take into account the capacity of farms and co-operatives to provide stable employment that keeps people in rural territories; believes that the funds made available by capping and degression should be retained in the Member State or region from which they derive;.

Believes that it is essential to ensure that support is targeted to genuine farmers, with a focus on those who are actively farming in order to earn their living;. Deems it necessary to maintain a simplified scheme for small producers so as to facilitate their access to and management of CAP direct payments;. Underlines the necessity of identifying the key elements of a well-balanced, transparent, simple and objective system of penalties and incentives, combined with a transparent and timely system for determining the eligibility of beneficiaries for receiving public money for the delivery of public goods, which should consist of simple, voluntary and mandatory measures and be results-oriented, thus shifting the emphasis from compliance to actual performance;.

Stresses that part-time farmers and people running farms with an income mix— which enliven the countryside in so many ways — engage in farming in order to earn a living and are genuine farmers, as defined in the Commission communication;. Calls for the current system for calculating direct payments in Pillar I, particularly in Member States where the value of entitlements is still calculated partly on the basis of historic references, to be modernised and replaced by an EU payment calculation method, the basic component of which would be income support for farmers within certain limits and which could increase in step with the contribution to delivering public goods in accordance with the EU objectives and targets until , in order to make the system simpler and more transparent;.

Emphasises that such a scheme would enable the administratively-complex system of payment entitlements to be replaced, resulting in a considerable reduction in red tape;. Requests that the Commission examine the necessity of payment claims as regards compatibility with WTO rules;.

Considers that payments should also include a strong common conditionality including environmental deliverables and other public goods such as quality jobs;. Clarifies that public goods are those services which are above the statutory environmental, climate and animal welfare legislation, including in particular water conservation, biodiversity protection, soil fertility protection, protection of pollinators, the protection of the humus layer and animal welfare;.

Stresses the need for a fair distribution of direct payments between Member States, which is essential for the functioning of the single market, and which must take into account objective criteria such as the amounts received by Member States under Pillars I and II and the fact that natural conditions, employment and socio-economic circumstances, general living standards, production costs, especially land costs, and purchasing power are not the same throughout the EU;.

Stresses that an increased convergence of the amount of direct payments between Member States can only be achieved if the budget is adequately increased;. Stresses that direct payments are there to support farmers in food production and the protection of environmental and animal welfare standards;. Urges the Commission and the Member States to acknowledge that the new societal, technological and economic changes, such as clean energy, digitalisation, and smart solutions have impacts on rural life;. Calls on the Commission to support efforts to improve the quality of life in rural areas so as to encourage people — and especially young people — to remain or return to rural areas, and urges both the Commission and the Member States to support the development of new services by entrepreneurs, chiefly by women and young people;.

Notes with concern that a lack of labour in several agricultural sectors is leading to the cessation of farming activities; calls for support to be provided in order to attract workers to agriculture;. Stresses the need to share the successful Member State models which bring together young and old farmers for generational renewal objectives;.

Recommends that access to finance be improved through subsidised interest rates on loans for new entrants;. Recalls that rural areas and settlements require special attention and integrated efforts to develop smart villages;. Calls for a level playing field for special technological improvements for rural hubs and grids;.

Why The U.S. Needs A New Generation Of Farmers

Calls on the Commission to introduce a multi-funded-investment approach in the post legislative period so as to ensure the smooth implementation of the integrated rural development tools, such as the smart villages initiative;. Believes that additional attention should be paid within the LEADER initiative to the needs and projects of micro-scale family farms, over and above providing for the necessary financial assistance;. Believes that it has been proven that rural areas need women and men to engage in small- and medium-scale farming;. Stresses the importance of maintaining specific compensatory support for farms in less-favoured areas, according to the conditions set by the Member States in the light of their particular local circumstances;.

Highlights, moreover, that the implementation of financial instruments in rural development should be done on a voluntary basis, while investments in rural areas should be strengthened;. Calls on the Commission to set up measures for the smart villages initiative to make smart villages a priority of the next rural development policy;. Believes that Pillar II financing for beekeeping should be better targeted and made more effective and that the new legislative framework should provide for a new Pillar I support scheme for beekeepers, including direct support per bee community;.

Emphasises that measures less closely related to farming must be subject to a higher co-financing rate;. Emphasises that Mediterranean EU regions are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as drought, fires and desertification, and that farmers will therefore need to make greater efforts in these areas to adapt their activities to the changed environment;. Calls, in the interests of simplifying the CAP, for maintaining the existing exemption and not burdening the smallest farms under 15 hectares with additional environmental and climate measures under the CAP;.

Proposes that this new form of greening should be accompanied by significant, coordinated and more efficient means in Pillar II through targeted tangible and intangible investments knowledge transfer, training, advice, the exchange of know-how, networking and innovation through the European Innovation Partnerships EIPs as another driver of change;.

Believes that a minimum amount of the total available budget in Pillar II should be allocated to AECMs, including organic agriculture, CO2 sequestration, soil health, sustainable forestry management measures, nutrient management planning for the protection of biodiversity, and pollination and genetic diversity in animals and plants; emphasises, in this context, the importance of maintaining Natura payments and ensuring that they are sufficient to serve as a genuine incentive for farmers;.

Stresses the need for payments under rural development to farmers in areas with natural constraints, difficult climatic conditions, steep slopes or limitations in terms of soil quality; calls for a simplification and improved targeting of the ANC plan after ;. Calls for climate-smart agriculture measures to be implemented and strengthened as the future impacts of climate change on agriculture in Europe will increase;.

Considers that the risks associated with climate change and land degradation across the whole farmed landscape need to be managed in the CAP, by investing in making agro-ecosystems resilient and robust, and by investing in ecological infrastructure to build topsoils, to reverse soil erosion, to introduce and lengthen crop rotations, to add more trees to the landscape and boost on-farm biological and structural diversity;.

Considers that the greater use of field residues as a renewable, efficient and sustainable source of energy for rural areas should be supported and promoted;. Highlights the important need for the CAP, Horizon and other supportive funding schemes to encourage farmers to invest in new technologies adapted to their farm size, such as precision and digital farming tools which improve the resilience and environmental impact of agriculture;. Calls on the Commission to deliver a CAP that achieves more innovation, contributes to advances in the bio-economy and provides solutions for biodiversity, climate and the environment;.

Calls on the Commission to focus on quality of life in rural areas, and to make it attractive for all people, especially for the younger generation;. Believes that the digitalisation and precision agriculture promoted in the CAP should not make farmers more dependent on either additional input or external funding, nor should it prevent their access to resources, but should be open-source and developed inclusively with the involvement of farmers;. Demands that action be taken to address the serious problem of farm accidents, which result in injuries and fatalities on EU farms, via measures in Pillar II to support investment in safety measures and training;.

Calls, in the context of the development of an EU protein plant strategy, for a single application of plant protection products over the period from before until shortly after sowing, to be authorised for all land down to protein plants;. Believes that investments in innovation, education and training are vital for the future of European agriculture;. Highlights that a results-based approach at Member State and regional level and innovative solutions provided by certification schemes should be further investigated in the framework of the future CAP, without adding bureaucracy and on-site controls;.

Calls for the introduction of targeted modernisation and structural improvement measures under Pillar II, with a view to achieving priority objectives such as Digital Farming 4. Urges the Commission and the Member States to safeguard and promote access to seeds and agricultural inputs for small-scale farmers and marginalised groups, and to promote and safeguard the exchange of seeds and their public ownership, along with sustainable traditional techniques that guarantee the human right to proper food and nutrition;.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to place more emphasis on entrepreneur opportunities for services to and from villages;. Notes that each farm is different and that individual solutions are therefore needed;. A strong position for farmers in the global food system. Calls on the Commission to maintain the current single common market organisation single CMO framework within Pillar I, including the specific policy instruments and marketing standards, and to improve the EU school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme; stresses the importance of existing production management systems for specific products and maintaining compulsory individual sector programmes wine, fruit and vegetables, olive oil and apiculture for producing countries, with the ultimate aim of strengthening the sustainability and competiveness of each sector and maintaining a level playing field while enabling access for all farmers;.

Recalls that unequal market power is a particular hindrance to cost-covering production in the dairy sector;. Calls for the introduction of a new self-help management tool for olive oil, which would enable oil to be stored in years when there is a surfeit of production, and to be released on the market when production is below demand;. Insists on the critical need for the future CAP to support farmers more efficiently, fairly and promptly in order to cope with price and income volatility due to climate, adverse weather conditions, and sanitary and market risks, by creating additional incentives and market conditions stimulating the development and voluntary use of risk management and stabilisation tools insurance schemes, income stabilisation tools, individual provision mechanisms and mutual funds while ensuring accessibility for all farmers and compatibility with existing national schemes;.

Stresses that a future-oriented CAP should be designed to better address critical health issues, such as those related to antimicrobial resistance AMR , air quality and healthier nutrition;. Underlines the challenges posed to animal and human health by AMR; believes that the new legal framework should actively promote higher animal health and welfare as a means to combat antibiotic resistance, thereby better protecting public health and the farming sector as a whole;. Draws attention to the fact that market risks can also be managed by improved market access for EU agriculture and food products in export markets;.

Insists on the importance of strengthening the position of primary producers within the food supply chain, in particular by guaranteeing a fair distribution of the added value between producers, processors and the retail sector, by introducing the financial resources and incentives required to support the creation and development of economic organisations, both vertical and horizontal, such as producer organisations, including cooperatives, and their associations and inter-branch organisations, by establishing harmonised minimum standards to combat unfair and abusive trade practices along the food supply chain and by strengthening transparency in the markets and through crisis prevention tools;.

Stresses that in accordance with the objectives of Article 39 TFEU and the exception referred to in Article 42 TFEU, the omnibus regulation has clarified the legal relationship between the provisions of the single CMO and EU competition rules and introduced new collective possibilities for farmers to enhance their bargaining power within the food supply chain; believes that these provisions are essential in the framework of the future CAP and should be improved further;.

To Promote, Recruit, and Support New Farmers in America

Considers that drawing on the lessons learnt from the functioning of the diverse EU Market Observatories Milk, Meat, Sugar and Crops , such tools should be extended to the sectors that are not yet covered and developed further to offer reliable data and forecasts to market operators in order to deliver an early warning and enable prompt and pre-emptive actions in the case of market disturbances with a view to preventing crises;. Calls for enhanced support for and the promotion of local markets and short food supply chains; stresses the need to develop local services relating to short supply chains;.

Calls on the Commission to further clarify and update, where necessary, the rules for producer organisations and interbranch organisations, particularly as regards competition policy, including with a view to the measures and agreements of interbranch organisations, in order to meet societal demands;. Stresses that the historical market management tools of the CAP i. Stresses the need, therefore, for the single CMO to continue to play an important role within the future CAP as a safety net in rapidly stabilising agricultural markets and in anticipating crises, and underlines the importance of the omnibus regulation in enabling and encouraging — drawing on the lessons learnt during the last market crises particularly in the dairy sector — the complementary use of innovative market and crisis management instruments, such as voluntary sector agreements, to manage and, where appropriate, reduce supply in quantitative terms among producers, producer organisations, associations of producer organisations, and interbranch organisations and processors e.

Welcomes the work being carried out on a sustainable protein strategy for the EU;. Notes the necessity of creating local and regional markets for leguminous crops across the EU, of improving environmental performance by growing crops in rotation, while also reducing the dependency on imported feed, fertilizer and pesticide inputs, and of increasing viability and economic incentives to change to more sustainable farming practices;. Considers that supply management measures for cheeses and ham with protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications or for wine have proven their efficiency in improving the sustainability, competitiveness and quality of the targeted products and should therefore be maintained and, if appropriate, extended so as to cover all quality-labelled products in line with the objectives of the CAP;.

Calls for an in-depth review of the current crisis reserve mechanism in order to create a workable and independent EU fund for agricultural crises, which would be exempted from the principle of annuality of the budget, so as to permit budgetary transfers from one year to the next, especially when market prices are sufficiently high, while maintaining the crisis reserve at a constant level throughout the MFF period, thereby enabling quicker, more coherent and effective prevention actions and responses complementary to the use of market and risk management tools in the case of severe crisis situations, including those involving economic consequences for farmers due to animal health issues, plant diseases and food safety, but also those arising from external shocks with an impact on agriculture;.

Stresses that the application of different standards would increase the risk of exporting EU domestic production abroad, at the expense of rural development, the environment, and in certain instances food quality;. Underlines that the need for reinforced safeguard mechanisms should also enlighten the debates surrounding future trade deals Mercosur, New Zealand, Australia, etc.

February 12222

Emphasises that, while it is important to continue to work for increased market access for European agricultural products, adequate measures for the protection of European agriculture, which take into account sector-specific concerns, are necessary, such as safeguarding mechanisms or the potential exclusion from negotiations of the most sensitive sectors and the application of the principle of reciprocity in production conditions, so as to ensure a level playing field between farmers in the EU and their foreign competitors; insists that European production must not be undermined by inferior and substandard imports;.

Calls on the Commission to start seeing agriculture as a strategic activity, and to approach free trade agreements in such a way that agriculture is not regarded as the adjustment variable of the other sectors involved in trade and that key sectors such as raw milk production are protected;. Recalls the New European Consensus on Development, in which the EU and its Member States reaffirm their commitment to and recognise the paramount importance of effective observation of the principle of Policy Coherence for Development PCD established in Article TFEU, which implies taking into account development cooperation objectives in all EU policies, including agricultural policy and funding, that are likely to affect developing countries in a negative way; considers, in this context, that CAP reform should respect the right of developing countries to shape their agricultural and food policies without weakening their food production capacities and long-term food security, in particular those of the least-developed countries;.

Calls, in accordance with the principle of budgetary efficiency, for coherence and better synergies between the CAP and all other EU policies and international commitments, particularly in the fields of energy, water supply, land use, biodiversity and ecosystems, and in the development of remote and mountainous areas;. Calls on the Commission to conduct a systematic impact assessment of the provisions regarding the agricultural sector in all trade agreements, and to offer specific strategies to ensure that no agricultural sector will suffer as a result of a trade agreement concluded with a third country;.

Insists that processes and production methods PPM are an essential part of social, economic and environmental standards in global agricultural trade, and encourages the Commission to urge the WTO to acknowledge PPM as such;. Underlines that fulfilment of the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and meeting the SDGs must be one of the governing principles of any trade policy with regard to agricultural products; notes that the Commission in its reflection paper on harnessing globalisation rightly signals the demand for more fair trade and sustainable and local products as a changing trend in globalisation; stresses that EU trade policy can extensively contribute to achieving the SDGs and climate goals set in the Paris Agreement;.

Recalls that the EU has eliminated export subsidies on its side and that there is no budget line left for export subsidies in the current EU budget; invites EU trading partners, in this regard, to make commitments to reducing trade-distorting domestic support; calls on the WTO members that continue to grant export subsidies to implement the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted in Nairobi on 19 December ;.

Calls on the Commission to anticipate and take account of the implications of Brexit when preparing the exchange of offers and calculating quotas;. Calls on the Commission to launch clear and transparent initiatives to further reinforce the promotion of EU production, safety, animal welfare and environmental standards and short supply chains and to support quality food production schemes, which could be achieved inter alia through European origin labelling schemes, and marketing and promotion activities on internal and third-country markets for those sectors benefiting from specific policy instruments under the CAP; insists on the need to reduce red tape and unnecessary conditions to allow smaller producers to partake in these schemes; welcomes the steady increase in the budget available for promotional programmes and urges the Commission to maintain the pace of increase in the appropriations in the light of the growing interest from producers;.

Stresses the importance of short local and regional supply chains, which are more environmentally sustainable — since they cause less pollution because they require less transport — and mean products are fresher and easier to trace;. Recalls the importance of empowering local farmers to move up the value chain by providing them with help and support on organic and value-added products and with new knowledge and technologies, as achieving sustainability requires direct action to conserve, protect and enhance natural resources;.

Points out that producing locally supports the local food culture and local economies;. A transparent decision-making process for a solid CAP proposal Stresses that Parliament and the Council should, via the co-decision procedure, set the general common objectives, basic standards, measures and financial allocations, and determine the appropriate level of flexibility needed to enable the Member States and their regions to cope with their specificities and needs in line with the single market so as to avoid distortions of competition deriving from national choices;.

Regrets the fact that the whole process of the CAP post programming exercise — consultation, communication, impact assessment and legislative proposals — is repeatedly starting with a significant delay as the end of the eighth legislature approaches, which risks debate on the future CAP being overshadowed by election debates and jeopardises the possibility of a final agreement being reached before the European elections;.

Calls on the Commission to introduce a transitional regulation which, in the event of a delay in the adoption of the CAP, enables farmers to continue to have access to rural development programme measures, particularly environment and investment measures;. Calls on the Member States to ensure, when implementing the new reform, that there are no delays in disbursing payments to farmers and to take responsibility and properly compensate farmers should such delays occur;. Emphasises, however, that as much progress must be made before the end of the current term as possible and this issue must be highlighted during campaigning for the European Parliament elections;.

Acknowledges the relevance of involving institutions and experts responsible for health and environmental policies affecting biodiversity, climate change, air, soil and water pollution in the CAP decision-making process;. Calls on the Commission to explore space science technologies and applications and the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation as mechanisms to assist in the monitoring of crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, support farmers, fisherfolk, foresters and policymakers in their efforts to employ diverse methods of achieving sustainable food production, and respond to related challenges;.

Stresses that the Commission should continue to ensure the strict enforcement of EU animal welfare legislation at all times in all Member States equally, with proper control and sanctions; calls on the Commission to monitor and report on animal health and welfare, including animal transport; recalls that products entering the EU must respect European animal welfare, environmental and social standards; calls for financial incentives for the voluntary adoption of animal welfare measures going beyond minimum legislative standards;.

Insists that special consideration should be granted to farmers who face extra costs owing to specific constraints linked to high value natural areas such as mountainous areas, islands, outermost regions, and other less favoured areas; believes that owing to their specific constraints, CAP financing is vitally important for these regions and that any reduction would have a very damaging impact on many agricultural products; urges the Member States to develop and implement quality schemes in order to give the producers interested the opportunity to introduce them swiftly;.

Considers that the budget of POSEI should be maintained at sufficient levels to face the challenges of agriculture in the outermost regions, as called for several times by Parliament; welcomes the results of the most recent Commission report on the POSEI implementation and considers that programmes for outermost regions and for the smaller Aegean islands should be kept separate from the general EU direct payments scheme, in order to ensure balanced territorial development by preventing the risk of abandonment of production as a result of challenges related to remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, and economic dependence on a small number of products;.

Believes that AECM support, complemented by eco-schemes at Member State level, should cover the costs for farmers of transitioning to new sustainable practices, such as through promotion and support for agroforestry and other sustainable forestry measures that support biodiversity and genetic diversity in animal and plant species, and of adapting to changing climatic conditions;.

Calls on the Commission to guarantee innovation, research and modernisation in agroforestry and forestry by supporting a strong and tailored advisory system, targeted training and tailored solutions to drive innovation and the exchange of know-how and best practices among Member States, with a general focus on relevant new technologies and digitalisation; underlines, at the same time, the crucial role of forest owner associations in information and innovation transfer, training and further education for small-scale forest owners and in the implementation of active multifunctional forest management;.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission. COM final. This Communication has already been announced by President Juncker in , it is included in the Commission Work Programme and was originally foreseen for spring The Communication thus aims to provide both basis and framework of the discussion between institutional and individual, public and private stakeholders across the EU It will be followed by legislative proposals as legal basis for the next programming period and accompanied by an Impact Assessment comprising the relevant evidence-base.

The original purpose of the Communication is to. The Communication also sets out three key objectives for agriculture in contrast to the original Treaty-based objectives:. Fostering a smart and resilient agricultural sector;. Bolstering environmental care and climate action;. Strengthening the socio-economic fabric of rural areas. A first step in the CAP post programming process was a broad on-line public consultation which received in excess of , online responses from all EU Member States with the vast majority submitted by individuals as well as over position papers.

Consequently, while reflecting broad ideas of the ongoing public debate, the IA will develop a set of policy options for development including an assessment how the policy objectives can best be met, including:.

The focus shifts to risk management, investments in restructuring and business development in agriculture and rural SMEs, climate and environment services and access to innovation, knowledge and ICT. The evidence base of the Communication and the IA is the following:. For public and private stakeholders the key issues raised in the Communication are therefore:. European Structural and Investment Funds ;. Regarding the forward perspective , it is relevant to recall that the last CAP programming exercise took two years from the initial publication of the Commission proposals June as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework MFF proposal to political agreement June and the final legislative approval in December which necessitated transitional measures across sectors until However, this did neither coincide with the end of the Commissions mandate nor the EPs legislative period.

Rapporteur for opinion: Maria Noichl. The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:. Recalls the New European Consensus on Development in which the EU and its Member States reaffirm their commitment to and recognise the paramount importance of effective observation of the principle of Policy Coherence for Development PCD established in Article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TFEU , which implies taking into account development cooperation objectives in all EU policies, including agricultural policy and funding, that are likely to affect developing countries in a negative way; considers, in this context, that the common agricultural policy CAP reform should respect the right of developing countries to shape their agricultural and food policies without weakening their food production capacities and long-term food security, in particular those of the least-developed countries;.

Recognises that the CAP is far from perfect and that it must be more pro-development, preventing distortions both in Europe and on international agricultural markets and favouring a transition towards more sustainable agriculture and resilient agricultural practices, which help to protect ecosystems and natural resources and reinforce their capacity to adapt to climate change, extreme weather patterns, drought, floods and other disasters and which progressively improve the quality of the soil, in line with the second SDG;.

Recalls that agriculture that fails to protect and improve rural livelihoods, equity and social well-being is unsustainable; calls for the EU to develop fair and environmentally sustainable food production schemes, incentivise responsible consumption and promote sustainable dietary patterns in all policies likely to affect developing countries;.

Why we need small farms

Urges the EU and its Member States to implement the commitment made in the European Consensus for Development to supporting agroecology, including through the agriculture investment window of the External Investment Plan;. Calls, while recalling the original CAP objectives as set out in Article 39 TFEU, for another chapter in the CAP post legislation regarding its responsibility in development policy issues, to include better integration of environmental objectives and the SDGs, since the ban on export subsidies means that economic distortions persist, enabling the EU agricultural sector to export agricultural commodities below average production costs;.

Considers it necessary, in accordance with the Agenda policies and the SDGs, to recognise the geographical imbalances in trade relations and competition in the farming sector between developing countries and the EU and to promote a more balanced relationship with trading partners;. Notes that EU exports and imports of agri-food products are based on trade agreements; stresses that these agreements should ensure a level playing field between farmers in the EU and the rest of the world, with preferences given to developing countries;. Urges the Member States to put an end to the goal of an ever more intensified European agriculture and to cease overproduction in the livestock sector through the obligatory introduction of an area-based livestock farming system; notes with concern that EU dependence on imported animal feed, particularly soy, has contributed to the growing demand for land abroad, leading to deforestation, biodiversity loss, displacement of communities and increased intoxication as a result of the cultivation of pesticide-intensive genetically modified soy in South America; urges the Member States, therefore, to reduce and progressively phase out their imports of protein crops from third countries such as Argentina and Brazil;.

Calls, in addition, for crop rotation with leguminous plants on all applicable arable land and for the implementation of an EU-wide protein strategy aimed at decreasing import dependency on soy from third countries; calls, in the meantime, for the introduction of sustainability criteria for imports of vegetable protein;. Calls for a shift away from indirect and untargeted subsidies such as area payments; asks for subsidies to be disbursed only if they contribute to public goods such as local jobs, biological diversity, animal welfare, clean air and water, and healthy, living soils;.

Recalls in this context the market-distorting effects of the reintroduction of coupled support in the CAP ; recalls that the abolition of milk quotas in , with the expectation of new market outlets for European agricultural products in developing countries, has aggravated overproduction, resulting in lower prices and affecting the development of the dairy sector in both Europe and developing countries;. Reiterates its view that the distribution of payments is unbalanced; is of the opinion that larger farms do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller or lower income farms in times of income volatility, since they may benefit from economies of scale which are likely to make them more resilient;.

Welcomes the Commission proposal to create employment opportunities and revenue-generating activities in regions of origin and transit of migrants through CAP-supported projects; calls on the Commission to implement EU-African Union exchange programmes through cooperation and dialogue on agri-food production and agricultural innovation;.

Underlines that more generally, agricultural trade must contribute, on a partnership basis, to reducing global inequalities and bringing more inclusive social benefits for all trade partners in the future, while staying within the ecological limits of our planet.

Where I work

Date adopted. Substitutes under Rule 2 present for the final vote. Ignazio Corrao, Mireille D'Ornano. Maria Heubuch, Monika Vana. The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:. Insists that processes and production methods PPM are an essential part of social, economic and environmental standards in global agricultural trade, and encourages the Commission to urge the World Trade Organisation WTO to acknowledge PPM as such;.

Underlines that fulfilment of the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change and meeting the SDGs must be one of the governing principles of any trade policy with regard to agricultural products; notes that the Commission in its reflection paper on harnessing globalisation rightly signals the demand for more fair trade and sustainable and local products as a changing trend in globalisation; stresses that EU trade policy can extensively contribute to achieving the SDGs and climate goals set in the Paris Agreement;.

Reiterates the importance of incorporating into trade agreements effective safeguard clauses which can quickly be implemented in order temporarily to suspend preferences in the event of market disruption which penalises sensitive sectors;. Highlights therefore the principle of qualified market access, meaning that imported goods should comply with EU standards;.

Further considers that goods produced in connection with deforestation, land or resource grabbing and human rights abuses should not be granted access into the EU market;. Calls on the Commission to anticipate and take account of the implications of Brexit when preparing the exchange of offers and calculating quotas. Klaus Buchner, Yannick Jadot. Anne-Marie Mineur, Helmut Scholz.

Rapporteur for opinion: Nedzhmi Ali. The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:. Emphasises that the CAP should remain a common EU policy, and can only deliver its objectives if sufficiently funded; calls, therefore, for the CAP budget to be maintained at at least its current level for the EU at constant prices in the next MFF post , in order to achieve the ambitions of a revised and efficient CAP;.

Highlights that the CAP should support the sustainable development of agriculture, which is crucial for providing safe food, jobs and growth in rural areas, as well as the sustainable management of natural resources; notes that effective audit and control approaches will have to be followed to ensure that the new delivery model under a reformed CAP delivers on environmental and social criteria in order for the sector to achieve greater sustainability by ;. Welcomes the intention to simplify and modernise the CAP; calls on the Commission to ensure that financial and performance control and audit functions are performed to the same high standards of continuous improvement across all Member States while fully respecting the principles of subsidiarity and flexibility; stresses that the Member States need to be given adequate competences to decide on the content, monitoring, control and sanctions of the support schemes applicable in their territories, but emphasises that any simplification or modernisation of the CAP cannot reduce the level of EU ambition, nor can it lead to a sectoralisation of EU policies and programmes, or the replacement of grants by financial instruments;.

Insists upon a results-based approach to payments; proposes, therefore, the inclusion of the following issues for indicators:. Opposes any renationalisation or national co-financing; stresses the need for a fair distribution of direct payments between Member States, which must take into account reliable socio-economic indexes and production costs, in order to close the gaps between the different regions of the Union in the next MFF; recalls that it is crucial to ensure equal competition conditions for all farmers in the EU, taking into account the vulnerabilities and specificities of small-scale economies; stresses, in this respect, the need to reform the agricultural crisis reserve and to increase funding in line with responses to the various cyclical crises in sensitive sectors, to create new instruments that can mitigate price volatility and to increase funding for Programmes of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity POSEI ;.

Advocates the introduction of degressive payments in order to reduce support for larger farms and shift focus towards redistributive payments, so as to provide more targeted support e. Emphasises that agreeing and applying a sound definition of EU added value would benefit public debate and decision-making on future EU spending; supports the move towards more efficient farming and EU added value, but warns against any attempt to use such a definition to call into question the relevance of EU policies and programmes on purely quantitative or short-term economic considerations; stresses the need to strengthen sustainable development, and to develop rural areas and climate and environmental protection through agricultural policy based on the achievement of performance targets; notes that, in order to deliver added value, there must be defined outcomes, results and impacts, and that the Commission and the Member States should agree on relevant evidence-based indicators before setting out their national and regional action plans for subsequent monitoring and implementation evaluation;.

Calls for greater synergies between policies which foster rural development and those designed to support the integration of refugees;. Calls for increased support for family farms and young farmers and for support for employment in agriculture in rural areas, especially for young farmers;. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:.

Stresses in particular that future CAP policies must contribute to economically, environmentally and socially sustainable agricultural production, health and other EU policies, and help to meet already agreed international commitments, in particular the COP21 Paris Agreement, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals SDGs and the Convention on Biological Diversity;.

Calls for a CAP that has as its top priority the transition of each European farm towards a sustainable undertaking which is fully integrated into the circular economy, combining economic with environmental performance standards without any reduction in social or employment standards;. Calls for a CAP that ensures all farmers, including small farmers, receive a fair remunerative income and which respects environmental limits, thereby ensuring resilience and long-term productivity;.

Recalls that the future CAP needs to encourage farmers to serve society as a whole by introducing or continuing to apply agricultural production methods that are compatible with environment protection and the preservation of landscapes, soils, natural resources and genetic diversity;.

Recalls that Parliament has already stressed the urgent need to take action to deal with the main causes of biodiversity loss, namely habitat destruction and degradation arising primarily from excessive land consumption, pollution, intensive farming, use of synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilisers, the spread of alien species and climate change; calls therefore for a CAP which is consistent with other EU environmental, social and health policy objectives and international commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals and climate treaties;.

Calls for support through new financial instruments and national measures for young farmers making new investments, with a view to the generational renewal of farmers;. Recognises that agro-ecological practices such as agroforestry can play an important role in this regard;. Calls for an increase in the share of organic agricultural production;. Calls for a reformed CAP that is simple, accountable and clearly oriented towards delivering results on sustainable agriculture; considers that the reform should make administrative procedures less complex and burdensome for farmers and improve performance monitoring at Member State level;.

Calls for a results-based CAP that is consistent with other EU policies and has as its top priority the transition to market-driven and sustainable European agriculture by enhancing long-term productivity and competiveness and setting European environmental, sustainable and societal development performance targets for the delivery of public goods;. Emphasises the need to deliver public goods and ecosystem services related to soil, water, biodiversity, air quality, climate action and the provision of landscape amenities;.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure that the future CAP supports more sustainable production systems and the enhanced delivery of public goods from land management;. Underlines the need to ensure that the future CAP and its expenditure effectively achieve the set objectives through compliance and through greater coherence across policy areas, this being of particular relevance with regard to the sustainable management of natural resources and the instruments dedicated to this aim under the CAP;.

Emphasises that farmers must be adequately rewarded for maintaining and protecting existing habitats; highlights, in this regard, that rules for agri-environmental schemes may incentivise farmers to remove existing habitats and plant new habitats in order to receive payments; points out that this could undermine efforts to enhance biodiversity and environmental protection, and therefore reiterates the need to reward farmers for habitat maintenance and protection;.

admin