17 Amendments of Sofia RIBEIRO related to 2015/2065(INI)
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; recognises, likewise, that in food supply chains in small markets that depend on two or three agri-food industries, as is the case for the markets in the outermost regions, these measures are not sufficient to balance bargaining power between the parties involved;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points to the limitWelcomes the creations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of but regrets the lack of participation by farmers’ organisations owing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanisms to adequately combat well- documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions, which makes its actions basically innocuous and discredits it among farmers’ organisations;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate for addressing UTPsraws attention to the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of voluntary initiatives to combat UTPs in the agri-food sector and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers; considers it important, therefore, to combine voluntary initiatives with framework legislation at European level;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. QuestionRegrets the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, givendisregarding the reluctance of farmers to participate and the huge impact of UTPs in the agri-food sector; regrets the pre-emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;
Amendment 129 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs, producing extremely interesting results, one example being Portugal; asks the Commission to assess these national efforts with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation at EU level, with strengthened powers of independent investigation;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
- having regard to the European Commission's report to the European Parliament and to the Council on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply Chain (COM(2016)32 final)
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
- having regard to the European Parliament's Annual report on EU Competition Policy, namely on paragraph 104,
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to the Final report of the Study "Monitoring the implementation of principles of good practice in vertical relationships in the food supply chain" produced by Areté srl for the European Commission (January 2016),
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
- having regard to the UK Groceries Code Adjudicator Investigation into Tesco plc from 26th January 2016,
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the extremely critical situation faced by farmers and agricultural cooperatives, especially, in the dairy, pigmeat, beef, fruit & vegetables and cereals,
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas unfair trading practices (UTPs) are a problem attested to by all entities in the food supply chain and by many national competition authorities; whereas the Commission and, Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee have repeatedly drawn attention to the problem of UTPs;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas significant structural changes have taken place in the business-to- business (B2B) food supply chain in recent years, involving excessive concentration and vertical integration of entities operating in the production, processing and retail sectors, as well as in the upstream to production;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative, as recognised by the recent European Commission report, has inherent weaknesses such as lack of effective deterrents against UTPs, not allowing for individual anonymous complaints by potential victims of UTPs or for own-initiative investigations by an independent body.
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Points out that the Supply Chain Initiative must be further improved namely through the four actions identified by the European Commission on its recent report by: Step up efforts to publicise the SCI, especially among SMEs; Ensuring the impartiality of the governance structure, for instance by establishing an independent chair who is not affiliated to specific stakeholder groups; Allow alleged victims of UTPs to complain confidentially. Nominate an independent body with power to investigate and impose sanctions; Enhance internal procedures to check that individual operators comply with their processes commitments and to monitor the occurrence and outcome of bilateral disputes in a confidential manner;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the setting up of national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food supply chain to promote fair trading practices and seek to put an end to UTPs; points out that some national platforms have not delivered on these objectives and, as in the case of Finland, farmers have abandoned that platform;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses that whilst many Member States have adopted legislation to combat UTPs in the food supply chain, a coordinated and harmonised binding action at EU level to improve the functioning of the food supply chain is still necessary; stresses that whilst many Member States have adopted legislation to combat UTPs in the food supply chain, a coordinated and harmonised binding action at EU level to improve the functioning of the food supply chain is still necessary;
Amendment 390 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting rules in thibinding action in the food supply chain against retailers harea, ofming farmers and consumers, in particular the of following aspects: the specific features of each market and the legal requirements obtaining on it, the different situations and approaches in individual Member States, the degree of consolidation or fragmentation of individual markets, and other significant factors; takes the view that such regulatory efforts should ensure that there is relatively broad discretion to tailor the measures to be taken to the specific features of each market and should be based on the general principle of improving enforcement by involving the relevant public agencies;