21.06.2010-24.06.2010
Tydzień Komisji Parlamentarnych w Brukseli.

21.06.2010

W poniedziałek odbyło się spotkanie przygotowawcze Komisji Transportu i Turystyki w obrębie grupy S&D, sprawy, które zostały omówione:

Dyskusja w związku z głosowaniem podczas spotkania Komisji Transpotu i Turystyki 22 czerwca 2010 roku.

-  JENSEN, Ticau, Inteligentne systemy transportowe w dziedzinie transportu drogowego oraz ich interfejsy z innymi rodzajami transportu
COM(2008)0887 - 2008/0263 (COD) - TRAN/7/02924

- VLASAK, Fajon, Normy emisji dla nowych lekkich samochodów dostawczych COM(2009)0593 - TRAN/7/01508 - 2009/0173(COD)

Agenda spotkania Komisji Transportu i Turystyki
21 czerwca 2010 r., w godz. 15.00-17.15
1. Przyjęcie porządku obrad
2. Zatwierdzenie protokołu posiedzenia z dni:
• 31 maja - 1 czerwca 2010 r. PV – PE442.900v01-00
3. Inteligentne systemy transportowe w dziedzinie transportu drogowego oraz ich interfejsy z innymi rodzajami transportu
TRAN/7/02924
***II 2008/0263(COD) 06103/4/2010 – C7-0119/2010
T6-0283/2009
Sprawozdawczyni:  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE) PR – PE441.309v04-00
AM – PE442.910v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  TRAN –
• Rozpatrzenie poprawek
4. Zmiana dyrektywy 2009/42/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie sprawozdań statystycznych w odniesieniu do przewozu rzeczy i osób drogą morską
TRAN/7/02454
***I 2010/0041(COD) COM(2010)0065 – C7-0068/2010
Sprawozdawca:  Brian Simpson (S&D) PR – PE441.154v01-00
AM – PE442.917v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  TRAN –
• Rozpatrzenie poprawek
5. Normy emisji dla nowych lekkich samochodów dostawczych
TRAN/7/01508
***I 2009/0173(COD) COM(2009)0593 – C7-0271/2009
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Oldřich Vlasák (ECR) AD – PE439.089v02-00
AM – PE441.205v02-00
Przedm. właśc.:  ENVI* –  Martin Callanan (ECR) PR – PE441.042v01-00
AM – PE442.834v01-00
AM – PE442.811v01-00
• Rozpatrzenie poprawek
6. Wymiana poglądów z Komisją w sprawie urządzeń do prześwietlania pasażerów
21 czerwca 2010 r., w godz. 17.20-18.00
7. Posiedzenie koordynatorów (przy drzwiach zamkniętych)
22 czerwca 2010 r., w godz. 9.00-12.30
8. Komunikaty Przewodniczącego
9. Wyznaczenie sprawozdawców – decyzja w sprawie procedury
10. Inteligentne systemy transportowe w dziedzinie transportu drogowego oraz ich interfejsy z innymi rodzajami transportu
TRAN/7/02924
***II 2008/0263(COD) 06103/4/2010 – C7-0119/2010
T6-0283/2009
Sprawozdawczyni:  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE) PR – PE441.309v04-00
AM – PE442.910v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  TRAN –
• Przyjęcie projektu zalecenia do drugiego czytania
11. Zmiana dyrektywy 2009/42/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie sprawozdań statystycznych w odniesieniu do przewozu rzeczy i osób drogą morską
TRAN/7/02454
***I 2010/0041(COD) COM(2010)0065 – C7-0068/2010
Sprawozdawca:  Brian Simpson (S&D) PR – PE441.154v01-00
AM – PE442.917v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  TRAN –
• Przyjęcie projektu sprawozdania
12. Normy emisji dla nowych lekkich samochodów dostawczych
TRAN/7/01508
***I 2009/0173(COD) COM(2009)0593 – C7-0271/2009
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Oldřich Vlasák (ECR) AD – PE439.089v02-00
AM – PE441.205v02-00
Przedm. właśc.:  ENVI* –  Martin Callanan (ECR) PR – PE441.042v01-00
AM – PE442.834v01-00
AM – PE442.811v01-00
• Przyjęcie projektu opinii
13. Zintegrowana polityka morska (IMP) – ocena dokonanych postępów i nowe wyzwania
TRAN/7/02394
2010/2040(INI) COM(2009)0540
Sprawozdawczyni:  Gesine Meissner (ALDE) PR – PE442.886v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  TRAN* –
Opinie: AFET – Decyzja: brak opinii 
ENVI – Decyzja: brak opinii 
ITRE – Decyzja: brak opinii 
REGI –  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) PA – PE442.787v01-00
PECH* –  Antonello Antinoro (PPE) PA – PE442.865v01-00
• Rozpatrzenie projektu opinii
14. Wymiana poglądów na temat decyzji STOA
15. Formalności sprawozdawcze dla statków wchodzących do lub wychodzących z portów
TRAN/7/00227
***I 2009/0005(COD) COM(2009)0011 – C6-0030/2009
Sprawozdawca:  Dirk Sterckx (ALDE) RR – PE430.405v02-00
AM – PE438.195v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  TRAN –
• Aktualna sytuacja
16. Sprawy różne
17. Termin następnego posiedzenia
Bruksela, poniedziałek 12 lipca 2010 r., godz. 15.00

Wtorek 22.06.2010

Bogusław Liberadzki Poseł do do Parlamentu Europejskiego, uczestniczył w
spotkaniach Komisji Transportu i Turystyki oraz Komisji Kontroli Budżetowej.
Posiedzenie COCOBU (Komisja Kontroli Budżetowej) poprzedzone było spotkaniem
przygotowawczym, na którym omówiono między innymi projekt studyjny opracowany
przez Blomeyer & Sanz który dotyczy: "Trudności Zarządzania i Kontroli
Funduszami Strukturalnymi w Państwach Członkowskich".
Profesor Liberadzki był odpowiedzialny za ocenę projektu, którą zaprezentował podczas posiedzenia. Projekt dostępny na naszej stronie internetowej.

Agenda spotkania Komisji Kontroli Budżetowej
22 czerwca 2010 r., w godz. 15.00-15.30
1. Przyjęcie porządku obrad
* * Przy drzwiach zamkniętych* *
2. Wymiana poglądów z Pinem Arlacchim, drugim wiceprzewodniczącym delegacji ds. stosunków z Afganistanem
Sprawozdawca:  Jens Geier (S&D) 
22 czerwca 2010 r., w godz. 15.30-18.00
* * Posiedzenie publiczne* *
3. Komunikaty Przewodniczącego
4. Wspólna delegacja z komisją BUDG do Chorwacji (22-25 czerwca 2010)
CONT/7/02598
Przewodniczący Luigi De Magistris (ALDE) 
• Wymiana poglądów na temat przygotowania do wizyty delegacji
5. Badania dotyczące problemów państw członkowskich w zarządzaniu funduszami strukturalnymi oraz systemów kontroli na okres programowania 2007–2013
CONT/7/02903
Poseł odpowiedzialny: Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D) 
• Przedstawienie badania oraz wymiana poglądów
6. Specjalne sprawozdanie Europejskiego Trybunału Obrachunkowego nr 18/2009 w sprawie „Skuteczności wsparcia udzielanego w ramach Europejskiego Funduszu Rozwoju na rzecz regionalnej integracji gospodarczej w Afryce Wschodniej i Afryce Zachodniej ”
CONT/7/01668
Sprawozdawca:  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) DT – PE439.179v03-00
• Rozpatrzenie dokumentu roboczego
7. Uproszczenia w realizacji programów ramowych w zakresie badań naukowych
CONT/7/02971
2010/2079(INI) COM(2010)0187
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Aldo Patriciello (PPE) PA – PE442.906v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  ITRE –  Maria Da Graça Carvalho
(PPE) 
• Rozpatrzenie projektu opinii
8. Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych
CONT/7/02650
2010/0816(NLE) 08029/2010 – C7-0090/2010
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Ivailo Kalfin (S&D) PA – PE441.269v01-00
DT – PE441.318v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  AFET* –  Elmar Brok (PPE) 
• Wymiana poglądów

9. Pakiet dotyczący ESDZ: Budżet korygujący
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D) 
Przedm. właśc.:  BUDG–   
• Wymiana poglądów

10. Pakiet dotyczący ESDZ: Regulamin pracowniczy
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Edit Herczog (S&D) 
Przedm. właśc.:  JURI–   
• Wymiana poglądów

11. Zmiana rozporządzenia Rady (WE, Euratom) nr 1605/2002 w sprawie rozporządzenia finansowego mającego zastosowanie do budżetu ogólnego Wspólnot Europejskich w zakresie dotyczącym Europejskiej Służby Działań Zewnętrznych
CONT/7/02636
***I 2010/0054(COD) COM(2010)0085 – C7-0086/2010
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE) 
Przedm. właśc.:  BUDG –  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE) DT – PE440.132v01-00
• Wymiana poglądów
12. Zmiana rozporządzenia Rady (WE, Euratom) nr 1605/2002 w sprawie rozporządzenia finansowego mającego zastosowanie do budżetu ogólnego Wspólnot Europejskich (zmiany związane z traktatem z Lizbony)
CONT/7/02449
***I 2010/0047(COD) COM(2010)0071 – C7-0063/2010
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE) DT – PE442.929v01-00
Przedm. właśc.:  BUDG –  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE) DT – PE439.277v02-00
• Wymiana poglądów
13. Trzyletni przegląd rozporządzenia finansowego
COM(2010)0260
Sprawozdawca komisji opiniodawczej: Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE) 
Przedm. właśc.:  BUDG –  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE) DT – PE439.277v02-00
• Wymiana poglądów
14. Sprawy różne
15. Termin następnego posiedzenia
• 12 lipca 2010 r., w godz. 15.00-18.30 (Bruksela)
• 13 lipca 2010 r., w godz. 9.00-12.30 (Bruksela)
* * *
22 czerwca 2010 r., w godz. 18.00-18.30 (Przy drzwiach zamkniętych)
Posiedzenie koordynatorów.

Środa, 23.06.2010
Poseł Bogusław Liberadzki spotkał się z zaproszoną grupą z Polski, uczestnicy mieli okazję przyjrzeć się pracy Parlamentu Europejskiego. Goście odbyli spotkanie w Parlamencie, w którym uczestniczyli Polscy Posłowie z Grupy Politycznej Postępowego Sojuszu Socjalistów i Demokratów.

Załączamy dwa dokumenty przygotowane przez Grupę Postępowego Sojuszu Socjalistów i Demokratów w Parlamencie Europejskim.

S&D GROUP TASK FORCE ON THE FUTURE OF COHESION POLICY
-jest to stanowiska grupy S&D odnoszące się do przyszłości polityki spójności:

The Future Cohesion Policy, with its revision planned for the next programming period 2014-
2020, should continue to follow a strategy based on Solidarity. It should also be a long term,
responsive, flexible, modern, EU-wide inclusive development policy in line with the actual/current "Lisbon" Strategy objectives and the future EU strategy (EU-2020). In order to achieve its objectives, the financial instruments and appropriations should be in tune with the level of needs and aspirations, within a set of clearly defined objectives. Cohesion with its territorial dimension is a common European Policy with synergies with other policies and with multilevel governance. Cohesion policy is a key tool to combine an EU responsibility with the capacity of Member States and local government to tailor interventions to territorial contexts representing furthermore a development strategy aimed at sustainable growth and social inclusion. By adapting this policy to the numerous challenges through an updated set of guidelines and new concepts we should establish a framework with complementary indicators and adjusted criteria for eligibility, implementation and evaluation. All this has to be possible with a better regulation, further simplification, transparency and flexibility while targeting the advantages and disadvantages of specific regions to create EU added value.

Our project for the future
A Future for Cohesion Policy, for harmonious EU development closer to the citizens
1. Cohesion policy is a central issue for the EU. It is directly linked to a balanced, sustainable,
harmonious and fair development. In this way it presents an integrated approach for Europe. As defined in the Treaties, it brings the EU closer to the citizens strengthening thus the European citizenship and ensuring long term development and stability by using regional potential. At the same time it is a policy able to respond adequately and in a long term perspective to local, regional or global challenges or crisis.
A reform of Cohesion Policy headed for further success
2. The reform of cohesion policy after 2013 is suitable and necessary: not only as a simple
review and adjustment but also as a further strengthening, improvement, development and an
adaptation of one of the most successful EU policies. This reform should be based on past
successes, lessons learned and best practices in order to be able to meet adequately the upcoming challenges.
3. Cohesion policy has to remain the principal instrument for balanced growth and a more
integrated Europe. The S&D Group proposal for the new EU cohesion policy is based on a clear set of priorities, on strategic guidance and on the process of a simplified and flexible framework to be implemented.
A strategy based on solidarity
4. EU Cohesion Policy is the most visible expression of European solidarity, which helps to
create a sense of European citizenship and to foster regional development within a common
economic and social framework.
An EU-wide inclusive Cohesion
5. EU Cohesion policy should remain an EU-wide policy giving access to resources,
experiences and assistance to all EU regions in a frame of a single and flexible Community
policy, capable of intervening at the most appropriate scale. Renationalisation of Cohesion policy is neither an option nor a perspective because this would clearly prevent the regions, especially those most lagging behind, from having the necessary means to pursue common European objectives, and from participating on an equal basis to the benefits brought about by EU policies.
A leverage effect policy for "Lisbon" and EU-2020 strategy
6. Cohesion policy has to capitalize on and use its huge potential in order to contribute to the
implementation of the “Lisbon strategy” focusing on areas that historically are the poorest
geographically or economically, and on those who have undergone the profound changes linked to globalisation and “structural” modifications. It should sustain an economic and employment revival in the poorest regions and in the regions that have other restructuring problems.
7. The S&D Group vision for the “EU-2020” strategy should become an important axis for the Cohesion Policy. This means a broader and more effective coordination of Cohesion objectives with policies on research and development, innovation and creativity, entrepreneurship, and job creation. There should be special emphasis on “green” jobs and those in social and health services, education and training, climate change, renewable energies, and other Union's objectives.
A long term, but responsive, flexible, modern development policy
8. Cohesion policy is a long-term a development policy with a clear strategic orientation
combining equity and efficiency. Moreover, a greater capacity to respond both to actual needs
and future or emerging challenges is also important. The upcoming thematic priorities, in
particular the social-economic imbalances between regions, the impact of financial and
economic crisis, globalisation processes, climate change, demographic change, technological
progress etc, should be taken into account. All these aspects will have to be included in future
programmes, which have to keep a certain degree of flexibility and margins to be revised in case of new unforeseen challenges.
Financial instruments and resources to mach needs and aspirations
9. Achieving the EU Cohesion policy objectives for the next period depends on adequate
financial resources. The Union's budget has to take into account new challenges such as climate change, globalisation, and demographic change. Consequently, the appropriations have at least to be at the current levels in absolute and relative terms. Effective and fair distribution of those resources has to take into account the specific needs of all regions as well as sufficient transitional periods for regions which will no longer be eligible under new objectives.
A set of clearly defined core objectives in line with current and future needs
10. The main objectives of Cohesion policy should be clearly defined and few in number within a sound strategic framework. At the programming and implementation level, sectoral or horizontal priorities should be applied, either at EU level or in specific programming areas. The objectives should take account of environmental aspects: climate change, "green" economy, as well as education with stress on vocational training, life-long-learning, research, development, innovation, urban and rural development, urban requalification and quality of life.
A Common European Policy with synergies with other policies and with multilevel
governance.
11. The future regional policy framework should aim to create an even more effective common European cohesion policy. It should provide for closer relations between EU institutions and national, regional and local authorities, and an enhanced synergy with other policies. A new integrated approach is needed in order to avoid useless overlapping and to have the most effective and coordinated use of EU funds. To this aim, synergies with other relevant policies (i.e. research and innovation, agricultural and rural development, trans-European network policies) should be taken into account in the definition of the strategic objectives. It should be assured that the local and regional level is effectively involved in planning, decision making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Structural Funds. However, regional development objectives should prevail and should not embrace objectives from different sectoral policies unrelated to social, economic and territorial cohesion.
12. To achieve the objectives and meet the priorities of the future Cohesion Policy, multi-level governance should be improved: to ensure a coherent and coordinated action between the European Union and all other levels of governance. Local and regional authorities and civil society, including NGO's, play a decisive role in achieving cohesion. An effective, comparable level of administration throughout the EU, is therefore a key ingredient of success.

A stimulus to EU territorial cohesion
13. The territorial dimension of cohesion, explicitly mentioned in the EU Treaties, should be
reflected in future Cohesion policy and seriously considered in the framework of all EU sectoral policies. The concept of territorial "solidarity" is about maximising regional potential, exploiting the territorial opportunities in favour of the entire EU, and the territorial approach allows to extract and aggregate the knowledge and the preferences of EU citizens and to accurately respond to their needs.
14. Territorial cohesion is based on the principle of equal opportunities and is focused on three key concepts: concentration, networking and cooperation. Although a proper definition has not been given yet, it means ensuring the polycentric development of the EU as a whole, as well as the balanced and sustainable development of territories with different characteristics and specificities while also preserving their diversity.
Better Guidelines, new concepts and instruments
15. The strong link between regional development and social cohesion - with coordinated
measures to tackle unemployment, social exclusion and provide vocational training - should be kept and reinforced, especially in view of globalisation and demographic challenges (ageing, migration, depopulation and urban concentration). To take into account the importance of the urban dimension and guarantee an integral sustainable development of the cities, it should be assured that goals like the promotion of the economic and social regeneration of cities and neighbourhoods are effectively mainstreamed in respective Funds.
16. Importance of gender mainstreaming; equal opportunities, and the special needs of disabled and senior persons should be borne in mind at every stage of the implementation and
assessment of Cohesion policy.
17. Infrastructural measures should be available to all regions with special focus on those
lagging behind, with priority to investments having a European added value.
18. Rural development programs could be rather better designed and coordinated under a
common management under Cohesion policy (together with other structural policy instruments).
19. Cross-border cooperation gives European added value and should be supported and
strengthened.
20. New concepts, such as the "Macro-regional" approach, the "Metropolitan Regions" or the
"Wider neighbourhood action plans", aiming at developing specific comparative advantages or overcoming particular local-level obstacles, should be considered. Integrated strategies like
those of the Baltic Sea, the Alpine area, the Danube Region should be supported but integrated into the Cohesion policy objectives.
Establishing a new framework for eligibility and better adapted criteria, within new
indicators
21. It is necessary to elaborate additional indicators as analytical tools that might complement
the GDP, in order to better evaluate the results of the structural measures, such as relative
prosperity, unemployment, environmental quality of growth or the technological gap and other. These complementary and comprehensive indicators should reflect the current state of play and future prospects of the regions. A stronger emphasis on impact evaluation should be achieved.
22. The automatic decommitment (n+2) rule should be safeguarded and applied with flexibility as it is essential for a maximum absorption of funds.
Better regulation, subsidiarity, further simplification, transparency and flexibility
23. Existing obstacles to the effective use of EU structural resources have to be removed.
Better regulation, further simplification, transparency and flexibility are indispensable in order to enhance the impact of cohesion policy for the beneficiaries and for the Union as a whole. Higher level of collaboration between European institutions and regional authorities is needed to ensure enhancement of management. Efficient local governance is the best way to reduce errors in implementation.
24. The future delivery mechanism could be based on greater conditionality to deliver certain
results while using the EU assistance on the basis of a place-based approach as well as by
committing Member States and Regions to establish national and regional targets aiming at
improved access to public services, delivery of structural reforms, social inclusion measures, etc.
Targeting the advantages and disadvantages of specific regions to create EU added value
25. The EU has an arsenal of measures to address the needs of outermost regions and other
regions with natural and geographical handicaps, such as islands, mountains, sparsely
populated regions, regions experiencing depopulation, border regions, peripheral regions,
coastal regions. Special consideration should be given to ways of offsetting their handicaps, to
convert regional potential into assets and opportunities, and to stimulate their development. At the same time, it is necessary to make the most of their particular characteristics, such as
biodiversity, cultural heritage and - specifically for the outermost regions - their role as
bridgeheads for fostering relations with third countries.
A High-level political debate
26. A commitment to greater effectiveness of the EU cohesion policy requires a High-level
political debate involving the European Parliament, a dedicated Council formation and the
Commission. This would make the cohesion policy as the EU development policy more
accountable, as well as obstacles and results more clear to EU citizens.

A NEW CAP (COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY)
Beyond 2013 and for a longer view
- Stanowisko grupy związane z polityką rolną do 2013 oraz po roku 2013.

1. Introduction
The debate on the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP) beyond 2013 is well under way. All those closely or even remotely associated with this policy are taking part in the debate. The newly elected EP is now ready to assume its new responsibilities resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, namely the role of co-legislator with the Council on the CAP.
A new and fundamental democratic legitimacy is born.
The Barroso II Commission is also in place and discussions on the CAP’s future architecture can now proceed on firmer bases between the three main institutions of the Union. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats must promptly define the main lines of the new agricultural policy that it proposes for the future, and it must publicise these before the Commission issues its communication, which is planned for the second half of the year. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (COMAGRI) is already preparing an initial own-initiative report on this subject. The common agricultural policy (CAP) has punctuated the story of integration since the start of the European project in 1957. Following its creation, and for a quarter of a century, this common policy developed in extraordinary fashion: it enabled the ancestral need for food self-sufficiency to be met; it contributed decisively to the modernisation of agricultural structures, with spectacular growth in productivity; and it ensured sufficient income for farmers and reasonable prices for consumers. Its competitiveness on international markets made it one of the key players: the European Union is currently the leading exporter and the leading importer of agricultural products on a global scale. Due to a lack of reform in time, this period of prosperity was followed, from the 1980s, by a period of crisis, characterised by structural production surpluses. The accumulation of huge surplus stocks in the three main sectors of cereals, beef and dairy products, with the resulting explosion in agricultural expenditure, not to mention the distortions caused by the export subsidies used on the international market to clear these stocks, has led a majority of population to a negative view of the CAP.

2. Assessment of the reformed CAP since 1992: merits and limits
During the course of the reforms begun in 1992, the CAP changed considerably. The general direction followed was correct, as the major production imbalances were eliminated and tensions between the EU and its trading partners were largely resolved. The key element in the 1992 Mac Sharry reform was the transition from the price support system (products) to compensatory aid (direct subsidies to producers), together with three accompanying measures. This was the first stage in the CAP’s redirection and the first step towards the decoupling of aid from production volumes. It also represented the beginning of a rural development policy. With Agenda 2000, this process was reinforced by defining a more coherent framework for the rural development strand, known as the second pillar, as also for the first pillar, covering direct subsidies and market measures. The 2003 reform allowed direct subsidies to be decoupled, thereby protecting them from WTO disputes. Measures were adopted aimed at improving the impact of agricultural practices on the environment, by introducing environmental cross-compliance, increasing the second pillar budget and taking account of consumers’ concern about the health and safety of products. The ‘Health Check 2008’ allowed certain aspects to be adjusted, while at the same time reinforcing the pursuit of the 2003 reform objectives (capping and modulation of subsidies, risk management, new challenges, Article 68, etc.). Aside from some specific criticisms of certain aspects of the CAP reforms carried out in the last two decades, there are two basic reasons for a New Start in the agricultural policy:
- the first concerns the radical change in the EU’s internal context and in the international context, and the emergence of new concerns and challenges facing the CAP: climate change, water management, renewable energy, biodiversity, soil erosion, etc.;
- the second relates to the principle of cohesion. Apart from perhaps the payments granted to less-favoured regions, the CAP – despite the reforms – has never managed to reduce disparities in the agricultural area. Moreover, farmers' incomes have traditionally been lower than those in other economic sectors. In short, the principle of economic, social and territorial cohesion, which has been enshrined in the Treaties since the Single European Act of 1986, has never been included within the objectives of the CAP. The largest holdings, which are also generally the most competitive and efficient, continue to receive the most support (direct payment calculated on the basis of the historical pre-reform yield). It is difficult to defend the legitimacy of such an unfair allocation of public resources (80% of the budget to 20% of the farmers). The EU, in the future, must ensure more convergence between the two policies that absorb three-quarters of its budget. On the one hand, it is quite rightly rolling out a regional and cohesion policy to reduce development disparities within the EU and within each of the Member States, and yet, on the other hand, it is continuing with an agricultural policy that is not heading at all in the same direction. There must be coherence between these two fundamental common policies. A new integrated approach is needed in order to avoid useless overlapping and to have the most effective and coordinated use of EU funds. Finally, another significant element for the Progressive family is that the majority of the direct subsidies do little to encourage work and job creation, and a great deal to enhance the value of land and other assets. However, in our opinion, the granting of aid must absolutely be linked to job creation in rural areas in order to maintain, bring to life and develop the agricultural
landscape in all regions of Europe.

3. A New Start to tackle New Challenges
In setting out to define a new architecture for the oldest of the common policies, the CAP, we must not make any errors in the diagnosis. The correct diagnosis has to be based on the concrete reality of agriculture in the European Union today with 27 Member States, and perhaps tomorrow with over 30. It must be based on the expectations and demands of society, on the new food, climate and environmental challenges, and on the international context that is now radically different (globalisation, international food crisis) with the emergence of new global players. The change in context and the emergence of new expectations within society call for an in-depth reform. That firstly means reviewing the objectives and fundamental principles of the CAP. A new conceptual framework is needed: instruments must be better focused on objectives; priority must be given to expenditure that is more socially useful, such as financing of public goods made available to society; and handouts (direct subsidies) must be replaced with measures encouraging those involved to take account of the new requirements (new contractual approaches). Public subsidies should be given to farmers in return for their provision of environmental services and landscape management. Such a CAP will only see the light of day if at the same time we commit to a comprehensive review of current subsidies, to ensure more legitimacy, fairness and efficiency in terms of the direction of public policy. The current CAP creates major disparities between the net financial balances of the various Member States. We know that, on this very sensitive and highly political subject, on which the taboo needs to be lifted, the battle will not be easy and, as in the past, the Heads of State or Government of the 27 will in all likelihood have to decide the matter. As a reminder, paragraph 24 of the conclusions of the European Council of 10 and 11 December 2009 states: ‘The European Council recalls the objective to carry out a comprehensive budget review covering all aspects of EU spending and resources. The European Council invites the Commission to come forward with a report in order to provide orientations on priorities during 2010. The European Council looks forward to the presentation by the Commission of its proposal for the next multiannual financial framework at the latest by July 2011.’ We know what this means. In the draft document last November on ‘the budget review’ (test of public opinion that was subsequently withdrawn), the Commission told us of its intentions. The risk that we must avoid at all costs is that, when the negotiations on the next financial perspective begin – and we know that they will run in parallel with the negotiations on the CAP reform – the decision on the volume of resources to be allocated to this policy for coming years precedes the reform itself. We must firstly decide on the shape of the new CAP and only then set the amount of resources to be allocated to it.

4. The CAP beyond 2013
The world needs a new global approach to agriculture, based on a fairer partnership between the North and South that should take into consideration all agriculture types in a way that leads to a global food balance. The CAP is currently at a crossroads. For tomorrow, we want a strong agricultural policy with a framework of basic rules decided at EU level. Agriculture remains a strategic sector which in many respects makes it different from other economic sectors. The primary function of agriculture is to feed the population, a goal which needs to be achieved and ensured by the CAP. We are against any form of renationalisation and/or cofinancing which would not be decided jointly. This new policy must be based on the triptych of legitimacy/fairness/efficiency: legitimacy of the public resources committed and accepted by taxpayers; fairness in the allocation of European funds between the 27 Member States, within each country, and among the farmers and regions; and efficiency in the correct use of public funds, solidarity being, in our view, one of the basic values of the EU.
This new CAP must therefore be fundamentally reshaped to serve all 500 million European citizens and to make the most of agriculture in each country. It must, as a priority, pursue a food objective encouraging new forms of sustainable agricultural production throughout the EU territory and be capable of responding to the main environmental challenges (climate change/depletion of resources/water pollution/soil erosion/etc.). Finally, the CAP must ensure a social dimension and cooperate with regional development to create jobs in rural areas. European agriculture must remain competitive internationally if it is to live up to external competition. It is important, however, to strongly reaffirm that the full liberalisation of trade in agriculture is not compatible with the objectives of food security, protection of the environment, climate change mitigation. Therefore, we have to design our CAP in a way that it meets these objectives, while guaranteeing that this way forward is not hindered by and does not hinder the conclusions of the Doha Round. The Union will no longer use export subsidies for agricultural products and must continue to coordinate efforts with the world's major agriculture producers to cut trade distortion subsidies. The new common agricultural policy must be in line with the EU concept of policy coherence for development in order to achieve a reasonable level of food independence in developing countries. Moreover, the EU should integrate legally binding environmental and social standards in its international commercial agreements, thus promoting the improvement of working conditions and environmental protection of its partners. International trade agreements should not oppose the right of countries of regions to support their agriculture in order to guarantee food security. This new ‘agricultural, food and environmental policy’ firstly requires more overall coherence. The first pillar (markets and direct subsidies) essentially remains an instrument almost exclusively providing income support, decoupled from production and conditional on a few environmental, public health or animal welfare criteria. Its legitimacy is clearly disputed. The second pillar (rural development), which is much smaller in terms of budget, no longer makes any real sense, particularly with the changes made by the ‘Health Check’ and its Article 68.

Initially designed to finance structural actions in rural areas, it has gradually become an indirect production subsidy in problem areas with specific environmental issues. It involves a real ‘hotchpotch’ of measures intended to meet the specific demands of Member States, rather than respond to the real imperatives of an ambitious and coherent CAP. Ambition and coherence should lead us to explore the idea of consolidating the politics of the two current pillars into a Single Structured Framework of European Rules for allocating subsidiesto farmers on the basis of criteria accepted by society and our international trading partners. This would achieve a double political objective: internally, it would ensure legitimacy in the use of public funds, since these resources would be used both to reduce the impact of negative external factors (greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, soil erosion, etc.) and to remunerate the public goods made available to society that the market cannot or will not provide(market failures); internationally, and particularly within the WTO, this aid would no longer be open to attack and would put the European Union in a position of strength for the conclusion of the Doha Round negotiations.This new structured framework of European rules would allow greater transparency and greater simplification of the administrative procedures for farmers' access to European subsidies. This new model would also allow a framework of stable rules to be established in the medium and long term so farmers could plan their investments in full knowledge of the facts. Finally, all the measures, currently existing in the second pillar that cannot be transferred into the new subsidy scheme, should be guaranteed to rural areas in a more coherent way, articulated
around the regional and cohesion policy. That is why it is so important to ensure the coherence of the reforms of these two policies within our Group. The main challenge for tomorrow is to ensure that European agriculture moves towards more sustainable production models, through energy savings, reduced use of chemical and plant health products, better use of the potential of ecosystems, more biodiversity, more animal welfare and a wider range of production, services and public goods. All these objectives can be reached by further stimulating the competitiveness of the agro-food system within an international dynamic context. This drastic change, which is synonymous with a change in paradigm, should also assist the dimension of job creation, particularly of green jobs, and should encourage the setting up of young farmers in all agricultural activities, whether traditional or new, and whether situated upstream or downstream of the production of agricultural raw materials. For this new CAP, sufficient budgetary means must be ensured for after 2013, and we should also consider new "carbon credit" instruments, because agriculture holds enormous potential in terms of combating climate change.

4.1 The CAP model proposed by the Socialists and Democrats:
a) An Integrated Payment Scheme based on new criteria;
b) A Regulation System for the management of risks and crises;
c) An Aid Scheme for structural measures and competitiveness.

4.1.a) An Integrated Payment Scheme based on new criteria
Subsidies to farmers should be allocated per hectare, based on a model which could be articulated on three levels:
- First level: basic payment – this would involve a basic payment per hectare of cultivated land linked to compliance by farmers with a set of environmental and social standards. This payment would be granted to all farmers that agree to conclude a management and maintenance contract for the agricultural area, with a maximum ceiling to be defined. It is therefore a decoupled and
conditional payment.
- Second level: payment linked to natural handicaps – this system would give higher payments to regions affected by one or more natural handicaps. These payments could be coupled to an agricultural activity so that production and environmental services together become sources of
income for the farmer.
- Third level: green point payment or payment for sensitive regions, covering certain environmental services, such as extensive grazing, areas rich in biodiversity, organic farming, PDO and PGI production methods, landscape conservation, wasteland , fallow land and marshland.
This new integrated payment scheme would make farmers responsible, with their payments being granted in exchange for providing certain services. This proposal also raises the issue of decoupling subsidies from land. The idea is that subsidies go to the farmer, who is not always the owner of the land that he cultivates. Such a system quite clearly requires the definition of zoning for the rural area, and the rules to set this up must be defined at EU level. This model is inspired by discussions developed in certain academic circles, particularly Jacques Delors’s Notre Europe foundation.

4.1.b) A Regulation system for the management of risks and crises
To cope with the unforeseen events traditionally faced by farmers, particularly the volatility of agricultural product prices in an internal market increasingly open to the outside world (WTO), extreme climate conditions (drought, fires, floods) and the spreading of animal diseases (BSE, dioxin crisis, swine fever, etc.), a regulation system should be provided that guarantees a safety net to farmers. There is a wide assortment of tools and strategies that could be used for this: intervention prices, storage, public-private insurance, a system of food aid for the most deprived sectors of the European population, the creation of a public/private market stabilisation fund. Stronger regulations and interventions within the food chain supply system to achieve fairer distribution of added value between the producer, agro-industry and the distribution chain is key to protect farmers' incomes. All these instruments and strategies should be used, individually and/or combined, to cope with unforeseen crisis within the different agricultural sectors.

4.1.c) An Aid Scheme for structural measures and competitiveness
All the measures currently in the second pillar that cannot be transferred to the new subsidy scheme – such as investments in agricultural holdings and investments aimed at the diversification of economic activities – must be guaranteed to rural areas in a more coherent way with regional and cohesion policy. Rural development programs could be rather better designed and coordinated together with other structural policy instruments. To improve the rural development and the competitiveness of EU producers, the dimension of research and innovation, as well as the development of green technologies, are crucial. The rural policy should further encourage the development of joint synergies of farm land systems. Joint initiatives on strategic projects could help both competitiveness and added value of EU production, safeguard jobs and make the sector more attractive for young people for new activities.

5. Conclusions
By chance or than by conscious decision, the reform of the CAP from 1992 to date has occurred in parallel with the successive reforms of the Treaties: 1992 Mac Sharry reform (Maastricht); Agenda 2000 (Nice); 2003 reform (Constitutional Treaty); Health Check 2008 (Lisbon). This could be called the ‘one step at a time while maintaining the original philosophy’ approach, as the articles of the successive Treaties on the CAP have remained unchanged since 1957. In a radically different internal and international context, this overly timid approach and conservative in many aspects is the main reason of the negative perception that remains in the minds of a significant part of the European and world-wide public with regard to the CAP. We must reaffirm the importance of the role of European farmers and the need for a strong common agricultural policy for the future, capable of tackling the new challenges, and propose a new, ambitious and transparent project. We need a New Deal between the agricultural world, industry upstream and downstream of the sector, research and development, and citizens – who are both taxpayers and consumers – to ensure a shared society. This is particularly required today, in this period where the deep economic crisis creates a strong feeling of anxiety and uncertainty. This new CAP must become a successful example of policy effectiveness, fairness, sustainability and responsibility, while tackling the food challenge and taking into account, in a coherent way, the economic, social and environmental dimension. Among the numerous political divisions that have always clearly shown the differences between progressives and conservatives, there is one that persists. In general, the former are those who anticipate and guide ambitious reform processes, whereas the latter only tackle the issues when forced to do so by the emergence of crises or external constraints. The reform of the CAP over the last 15 years has generally followed this second path. We believe that the time has come to take back control and play our part as pioneers, by proposing an Ambitious Agricultural Agenda for the coming decades.