47 Amendments of Marc TARABELLA related to 2015/2065(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the 2012 report entitled ‘The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers; what are the implications for consumers?’ by Consumers International,
Amendment 4 #
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; stresses the need to strengthen the bargaining power of farmers, in particular by giving them the right to have their contracts collectively bargained;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas, given the impossibility of stopping the agricultural production process once begun, and the perishable nature of its products, farmers are particularly susceptible to UTPs in the food supply chain;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Da. whereas supermarkets are developing their own brands while independent brands decline, leading to a new role for supermarkets as producers' competitors;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recognises that unfair trading practices (UTPs) result primarily from income and power imbalances in the food supply chain and that these imbalances must be urgently addressed in order to ameliorate the situation for farmers;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas agricultural producers are vulnerable in price negotiations with supermarkets that have their own brand;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)
Recital D d (new)
Dd. whereas producers sometimes work at a loss following negotiations with other actors in the food supply chain that put them at a disadvantage, e.g. through supermarket markdowns and reductions;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the effects of these UTPs also have harmful effects on the consumer, particularly by driving up the prices of independent brands, reducing choice and creating deliberate confusion on prices through advertising methods; whereas there may be overall reductions in service, price, quality and range (SPQR) to the detriment of the consumer;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes the serious misuse of basic agricultural foods as "loss leaders" by large scale retailers and the risks posed by this activity to primary food producers and the threat to the long term sustainability of European production of such items;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Calls on the relevant stakeholders to facilitate incorporation of farmers' organisations, including producers' organisations and their associations, within the scope of national enforcement bodies governing the food supply chain, primarily by securing anonymity of complaints and effective sanctions regime;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Doubts whetherConsiders that voluntary initiatives are adequate forhelpful but cannot comprehensively addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmoperators in the food supply chain including farmers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view that strengthening and establishing producer organisations must go hand in hand with strengthening farmers' bargaining power in the food chain;
Amendment 113 #
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; asks the Commission to assess these national efforts with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level in order to bring equity into the food supply chain, particularly for farmers, primary producers but also for consumers; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation in a strengthened form with enforcement powers at EU level;
Amendment 144 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers while giving European farmers and consumers an opportunity to benefit from fair selling and buying conditions; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes that unpredictable changes of contract terms may lead to overproduction and result in unnecessary food waste;
Amendment 147 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers and weaker businesses in the supply chain wherever they are located; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Calls on the Member States to encourage supermarket food stores to offer routinely to food aid associations foodstuffs that are unsold but still edible, notably by cutting drastically or abolishing VAT on food gifts to the most needy;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12b. Stresses that the disparities between the Member States’ laws on UTPs in the food supply chain enable the party that is in the stronger position to engage in forum shopping to find the Member State with the least strict rules in this area;
Amendment 177 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on Member States to encourage food superstores routinely to give food aid associations foodstuffs that are unsold but still edible, notably by slashing or abolishing VAT on food donations to the most needy;
Amendment 178 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Is convinced that consumer awareness about agricultural products is fundamental to address the problems resulting from imbalances in the food supply chain, including UTPs; calls on all stakeholders involved in food supply chain management to step up transparency in the overall food supply chain, increase consumer information by more adequate product labelling and certification schemes in order to enable consumers to make fully informed choices about available products and to act accordingly;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Commission to define clearly the fundamental principles of fair negotiation between all actors in the food supply chain;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to combat the territorial limitations which make it impossible to obtain identical prices in another Member State or from a central point, while protecting the interests of producers;
Amendment 189 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Notes that short food supply chains will be easier to enforce UTPs from adversely affecting farmers and are better for the environment; demands comprehensive action from the Commission to promote and facilitate short, local and sustainable food supply chains;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Encourages the Commission to create a binding instrument to regulate the conduct of undertakings vis-à-vis producers and consumers, e.g. by requiring changes to be made in the structure of undertakings;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Calls on the Commission to put in place a legal framework for dispute settlement at EU level providing all parties with a single clear problem-solving procedure;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17c. Proposes that Member States put in place a mediator to help boost expertise in the food supply chain;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17d. Asks the food sector to publish systematic reports identifying good and bad trade practices in the food supply chain;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)
Paragraph 17 e (new)
17e. Calls on the Member States to impose automatic enforcement measures against UTPs in the food supply chain accompanied, where necessary, by financial penalties;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is very concerned about recent findings that one of the early signatories of the SCI operating across Europe has been found guilty of unreasonably delaying payments to its suppliers; regrets that neither the Commission nor the SCI has directly reported this finding in their reports;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Is concerned about the Commission report which does not take into account many findings of the study, notably with regard to the assessment of voluntary approaches;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Regrets that no concrete case has been examined to assess the SCI role in tackling unfair trading practices;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Regrets that some of the dispute resolution options promoted by the SCI have not yet been used in practice and the assessment of their effectiveness has been based more on "theoretical" judgments rather than on empirical observation;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Rather than simply encouraging some improvements in the SCI, stresses that study evaluating the effectiveness of the SCI highlights a broad range of its shortcomings – lack of trust from external experts and organisations, weaknesses in governance, under-representation of SMEs, limitations in transparency and no enforcement measures and penalties;
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. Stresses the evaluation of the study which concludes that SCI has very limited powers to directly enforce measures to address UTPs, notably due to the lack of effective deterrents against unfair behaviour;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 g (new)
Paragraph 3 g (new)
3g. Believes, that current voluntary framework's dispute resolutions should remain available for all suppliers who are not concerned about their anonymity and may usefully evolve as an educational and best practices sharing platform;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 h (new)
Paragraph 3 h (new)
3h. Regrets that study assessed only 4 national voluntary initiatives; points out that only one of those is generally considered as effective and adequate; on the contrary, another one has been negatively affected by serious weaknesses and no disputes have been brought before the board to date;
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 i (new)
Paragraph 3 i (new)
3i. Points out that recent study findings do not bring the evidence for the Commission's evaluation statement that voluntary initiatives seem to work better in some countries than in others, and that the Commission should seriously take into account several rather negative national experiences with voluntary agreements in order to move towards establishing concrete legislative and enforcing measures to prevent unfair trading practices;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out, following the recent Commission study main findings on the Supply chain initiative, that more than 20 Member States have introduced legislation to combat UTPs or are planning to do so in the near future; welcomes that Commission report identifies a number of specific areas to be improved in this regard; believes, that this set of best practices should serve as a basis for effective and transparent framework of legislative and enforcement measures in the EU;
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Notes results of the study, where survey respondents indicated as the most preferred approaches in tackling UTPs the combination of voluntary initiatives and public enforcement (33% of total answers) or a specific legislation at EU level (32%); on the other side, reliance on voluntary initiatives alone at national (4%) or EU level (9 %) resulted to be the less preferred approach;
Amendment 373 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Believes that in order to reduce UTPs effectively, the Commission should take concrete measures to create common binding rules and should establish or appoint a network of national enforcement authorities which operate according to minimum principles and enforcement standards developed at the EU level;
Amendment 374 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17c. Questions the Commission's vague statement that different approaches in Member States do not seem to have negative consequences for the Single market; points out that previous study accompanying Commission's communication recommended to address the fragmentation of legal rules and approaches in the EU in order to prevent a negative impact of fragmentation on the EU Single Market; Is convinced that fragmentation and different legislative approaches in MS contribute to legal uncertainty, additional costs for businesses, notably SMEs, and raise difficulties to the cross-border market access and cooperation;
Amendment 375 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17d. Welcomes that the Commission finds it necessary to ensure that UTP legislation covers operators from non-EU countries; Believes that clear and transparent rules at the EU level would facilitate fair trading practices towards third countries traders;
Amendment 378 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Is convinced that functioning enforcement mechanisms should be accessible to all market operators in the food supply chain, regardless of geographical origin;
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Believes that the scope of enforcement should cover entire supply chain both inside Europe and overseas in order to positively contribute to the overall sustainability of the food production; suggests coordinated enforcement across the EU to discourage market players from moving their purchasing department to low-enforcement countries to continue with UTPs;
Amendment 380 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Calls on Member States without a competent enforcement authority to consider establishment of enforcement authority and provide it with the power to supervise and enforce measures necessary to tackle UTPs;
Amendment 381 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)
Paragraph 18 d (new)
18d. Points out that existing fragmented and low enhanced cooperation within different national enforcement bodies is not sufficient to address cross-border challenges regarding UTPs;
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)
Paragraph 18 e (new)
18e. Highlights that the enforcement authorities should have a number of different enforcement measures and different range of sanctions at their disposal to allow, according to the gravity, flexibility of response; believes that these measures should aim at changing behaviour and deterrence;