BETA


2011/0281(COD) Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products 2014-2020. Single CMO Regulation

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead AGRI DANTIN Michel (icon: PPE PPE) GARCÍA PÉREZ Iratxe (icon: S&D S&D), REIMERS Britta (icon: ALDE ALDE), BOVÉ José (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), NICHOLSON James (icon: ECR ECR), SCOTTÀ Giancarlo (icon: EFD EFD)
Committee Opinion REGI
Committee Opinion EMPL
Committee Opinion BUDG LA VIA Giovanni (icon: PPE PPE)
Committee Opinion ENVI
Committee Opinion DEVE SCHNIEBER-JASTRAM Birgit (icon: PPE PPE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 042-p1, TFEU 043-p2

Events

2023/07/25
   EC - Follow-up document
2023/04/21
   EC - Follow-up document
2023/01/13
   EC - Follow-up document
2019/12/17
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

In accordance with Article 225(a) of the common organisation of markets Regulation, the Commission presented its seventh report on the implementation of apiculture programmes.

This report covers apiculture years 2017-2019, corresponding to the time period 1 August 2016 to 31 July 2019. These are the first apiculture years where new measures applied. It includes information received in relation to previous apiculture years, as well as programmes planned for apiculture years 2020-2022, notified to the Commission by 15 March 2019.

General overview

There are approximately 17.5 million hives in the EU, managed by 650 000 beekeepers. The number of beekeepers has increased compared with the notification received in 2016 for the 2017-19 programmes. The apiculture sector produced 280 000 tonnes of honey in 2018, making the EU the second largest honey producer after China (550 000 tonnes). In 2018, the rate of self-sufficiency was around 60%, which is roughly at the same levels as in 2015. In 2018, the EU imported 208 000 tonnes of honey with a total value of EUR 452 million.

Prices for honey vary greatly between Member States, quality and point of sale. The EU average price for multi-floral honey at site of production in 2018 was EUR 6.46/kg.

Objectives and measures of the apiculture programmes

The programmes for apiculture years 2020-2022, and their financing, were approved through Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/974 . The objective of the programmes is to improve the general conditions for producing and marketing apiculture products in the Union.

The 2013 CAP reform introduced some changes to the programmes. The main objectives of these changes were to adapt eligible measures to the needs of the sector, and to ensure a sounder allocation of the EU budget by improving the methods used by the Member States to determine the number of beehives on their territories. The resulting eligible measures are further described below:

- technical assistance to beekeepers and beekeepers' organisations;

- combating beehive invaders and diseases, particularly varroasis;

- rationalisation of transhumance;

- measures to support laboratories for the analysis of apiculture products with the aim of helping beekeepers to market and increase the value of their products;

- restocking of beehives;

- cooperation with specialised bodies for the implementation of applied research programmes in the field of beekeeping and apiculture products;

- market monitoring;

- enhancement of product quality with a view to exploiting the potential of products on the market.

EU budget

Union funds dedicated to the apiculture sector are relatively small but increased from EUR 36 million per year for the 2017-2019 apiculture programmes to EUR 40 million per year for the 2020-2022 apiculture programmes. The Union contribution to apiculture programmes corresponds to 50% of the expenditure borne by the Member States. In concrete terms, it means that for the 2017 and 2018 apiculture years, EUR 72 million in total were available for the apiculture programmes each year. Although the funding was not fully utilised, the usage rate is high.

In 2018, as in previous years, the two measures technical assistance and combating beehive invaders receive most of the available funding, or close to 60% combined. Also as in previous years, the two measures restocking of beehives and rationalisation of transhumance rank as the third and fourth most popular measures, accounting for more than 30% combined. Applied research and analysis of honey remained at the 5th and 6th place, receiving 3.48% respectively 2.45% of the available funding in 2018. The two new measures, product improvement (0.69% of the total expenditure) and market monitoring together received less than 1% of the funding.

Determining the number of beehives

A total of 17 Member States are using mandatory methods for counting beehives including the Member States with the highest number of hives, such as ES, RO, IT, FR and EL. The mandatory methods may include the obligatory registration of beekeepers and/or beehives in a specific register, set up for that specific purpose, or the use of data from other mandatory registers such as veterinary information systems. A total of 11 Member States are instead using other methods than mandatory registration. These include Member States with fewer beehives, such as SE, DK, IE and EE. These Member States may rely on information received from beekeepers´ organisations, surveys, censuses, or a combination of these methods.

Future apiculture sector

In its proposal for a CAP beyond 2020, the Commission proposes to move the apiculture programmes from the Common Market Organisation Regulation to the CAP Strategic Plan Regulation. The proposal also includes an increase of the funding of the apiculture programmes, to EUR 60 million per year. This means that over the 7-year period of the future CAP, Union funding together with the Member States´ contributions, a total of EUR 840 million is available for the sector. While the apiculture programmes were voluntary under the CMO, the Commission proposes that they become mandatory in the Member States’ CAP strategic plans.

Conclusion

The report concluded that although the apiculture programmes have remained voluntary under the CMO, all Member States continue to introduce the programmes, developed in cooperation with the sector. The programmes vary between Member States, depending on the needs of that particular Member State, but the measures receiving most of the support - technical assistance and combating beehive invaders - have remained unchanged since the last report in 2016. The funding to the sector has continued to increase over the last programming periods. The number of beehives is one indicator of the impact of the support measure and this number continues to increase. However, looking at the overall profitability of the sector, EU average prices have not increased, while production costs are increasing and import prices decreasing. This poses challenges for the sector and indicates a continued need for support, also considering the important role of bees for the environment and agriculture.

2016/12/07
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

This report concerns the implementation of the measures relating to the beekeeping sector of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products. It covers the 2013, 2014 and 2015 beekeeping years.

During the three beekeeping years covered by the report, the changes in the beekeeping sector introduced by the CAP reform in 2013 had not yet been implemented. Nevertheless, the report presents the main changes introduced by the CAP reform as well as the latest information available on hive identification systems.

Eligible measures: with the reform of the CAP, these measures have been adapted to the changing needs of the sector. There are currently eight eligible measures to support the beekeeping sector:

technical assistance to beekeepers and beekeeping organisations; combating hives and diseases of the hive, in particular varroasis: rationalisation of transhumance; support measures for laboratories analysing hive products; aid for the restocking of the Union's beehive herd; cooperation with specialised bodies for the implementation of applied research programmes in the field of apiculture and beekeeping products; monitoring the production and prices of honey and beekeeping products; improving the quality of the products in order to enhance the market value of the products.

Hives: according to the data provided in the 2014-2016 programmes, the EU had some 16 million hives . The five Member States with the largest number of hives are Spain, France, Greece, Romania and Italy.

With the reform of the CAP, the methods for allocating EU funds to the Member States on the basis of the number of hives present on their territory have been harmonised . The Union's contribution to the financing of beekeeping programmes is now allocated in proportion to the average total number of hives notified during the two calendar years immediately preceding the notification to the Commission of beekeeping programmes.

EU budget for national beekeeping programmes: for the 2013 beekeeping campaign, a total of EUR 64 million was made available to the beekeeping sector. For the 2014 and 2015 beekeeping campaigns, a total amount of EUR 66.2 million was made available for each marketing year.

The findings of the report show that all Member States have implemented national apiculture programmes and that more than 90% of the allocated Union funds have been used for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 beekeeping years. The Commission therefore concludes that the market measures put in place by the EU for the beekeeping sector are effective .

For the 2017-2019 beekeeping programmes, the available EU funds will increase to EUR 36 million per beekeeping campaign.

The report indicates that the first tangible effects of the reform will be visible from the start of the 2017-2019 bee programmes , which started in August 2016. It contains no new legal proposals.

The next report, expected in three years, will provide an opportunity to assess the impact of the new regulatory provisions introduced by the CAP reform in 2013.

2016/11/24
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

The Commission has presented a report on the development of the dairy market situation and the implementation of the “milk package”.

The milk package is a set of legislative provisions, contained in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (the "CMO Regulation"), in force since 3 October 2012 and which will continue to apply until 30 June 2020.

The milk package includes mandatory contract provisions that apply to all types of milk collection systems. Provisions relating to producer organisations (POs) and collective bargaining relate more to those Member States where cooperatives are least developed.

1. Market situation: following an unstable period in global supply and demand in the course of 2015 and in the first half of 2016, when prices of EU dairy products reached their lowest levels, market conditions for milk have improved since spring 2016. These positive signs could translate into an increase in producer milk prices from August 2016.

The medium-term outlook for the milk and dairy sector is favourable . Global and national demand is expected to continue to increase, allowing the EU dairy sector to improve its position in world markets.

2. Implementation of the milk package: the report finds that the main objective of the milk package, namely to improve the position of milk producers in the supply chain, has been partially met:

Compulsory delivery contracts: these contracts cover 41% of EU milk deliveries in 13 Member States, thus formalising the relations between producers and processors in the Member States. Approximately 95% of all milk deliveries from the EU are currently the subject of a formal agreement in one form or another; Producer organisations (POs): at the end of 2015, 26 producer organisations (POs) were recognised by 11 Member States , mostly in Germany, France and Italy. About 60% of POs have confirmed that they have succeeded in obtaining a more stable price for milk. The activities of POs surveyed go beyond negotiating prices . They also negotiate delivery volumes, delivery and payment terms, provide value-added services in addition to milk supply, or support the activities of producers: milk collection, information exchange, quality control, technical or economic advice, etc; Collective bargaining: six Member States - mainly Germany, France and the Czech Republic and, to a lesser extent, Spain, the United Kingdom and Bulgaria - reported raw milk deliveries in 2014 and 2015 in the context of collectively negotiated contracts. The volumes collectively negotiated covered 25% of their total milk deliveries in 2015, accounting for approximately 13% of total EU raw milk deliveries , with no reported infringements of competition; Regulation of supply for PDO/PGI cheeses: the two Member States that introduced it (Italy and France) gave a positive assessment as regards the proper adjustment of supply to demand, price stabilisation and protection of cheese production in disadvantaged areas; Interbranch organisations: these contribute to greater transparency across the supply chain and have proved their usefulness in a wide range of activities such as defining standardised contracts, promotion and providing technical advice; Compulsory declarations of milk deliveries: this has secured a rigorous volume information system, while improving significantly the timeliness of the information.

3. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that actions of a pedagogical, financial, or operational nature at EU and Member State level could be envisaged to better exploit the potential of two key instruments of the milk package, i.e. the POs and collective negotiations:

organisation of workshops involving Member States' experts to share experiences and best practices in their countries launch of campaigns to raise farmers' and processors' awareness on the functioning and potential of POs; giving POs a priority status over individual producers accessing aid schemes, in the form of premiums, or tax advantages at national level; making additional financial support for POs conditional to the achievement of collective negotiation objectives as well as other joint activities that would help POs gain more value; consider setting an obligation to farmers belonging to a PO to deliver all their milk (or a minimum share) through their PO; revision of the administrative conditions and requirements for the recognition of POs so as to define reasonable minimum sizes while avoiding discrimination among farmers in different Member States due to current divergent criteria; expanding the role of interbranch organisations.

In view of this report’s findings, the Commission envisages extending the Milk Package beyond 2020 to allow its full potential to materialise.

2016/11/24
   EC - Follow-up document
2014/10/21
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2014/06/13
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

The Commission presents a report on the development of the dairy market situation and the operation of the "Milk Package" provisions.

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides that the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council by 30 June 2014 on the development of the market situation in the milk and milk products sector, and in particular on assessing the effects on milk producers and milk production in disadvantaged regions in connection with the general objective of maintaining production in such regions, and covering potential incentives to encourage farmers to enter into joint production agreements, together with any appropriate proposals.

The conference "The EU dairy sector: developing beyond 2015" held in Brussels on 24 September 2013 explored new challenges that the milk sector will face and discussed whether additional instruments were needed and feasible, taking into account the end of the quota system in 2015 . Deliberations in the EU institutions on the results of the conference are ongoing. This report brings additional elements for the discussion and the Commission is keen to continue the debate with Parliament, the Member States and stakeholders on how best to manage the markets once the quotas have disappeared with a view to making further proposals where appropriate.

Main findings of the report are as follows :

- Market development to date : the EU milk market is currently in a quite favourable situation. The EU average milk price in January 2014 was 40.03 c/kg which is 17% higher than in January 2013, and the highest average milk price for January ever recorded (statistics since 1977). This upward trend has also been observed in the price of dairy products, although butter prices have been under some pressure since the beginning of 2014. Up to now, the strong global demand has supported firm prices.

However, a correction in prices should not be excluded, given the milk production increase observed across the major exporters. The medium-term prospects for milk and dairy commodities are favourable on both the world and domestic markets. World demand remains dynamic, especially in the emerging economies. Despite the slowdown in economic growth, dairy products are featuring more prominently in people’s diets due to a higher proportion of middleclass households. Production increases resulting from the lifting of quotas can be expected especially in those Member States currently restricted by the quota such as Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and Poland, as well as in France. Production will depend on the pace of consumption increase in both the EU and the world and on other factors such as environmental constraints.

- “Milk package” provisions : the " Milk Package " was published in March 2012, has been fully in force since 3 October 2012 and applies until 30 June 2020. Implementing and delegated regulations were published in June and September 2012.

The Milk Package provisions have been transposed into national legislation. 12 Member States have provided for compulsory contracts between farmers and processors. In two other Member States codes of good practice inspired by the Milk Package have been agreed between farmers and processors organisations.

Almost all Member States have adopted national criteria for the recognition of Producer Organisations (POs), though some only recently. In 6 Member States a total of 228 POs were recognised by the end of 2013, a number of which existed before the Milk Package came into force. The creation of (new) POs requires time and of course a strong dynamic coming from farmers themselves. The recent favourable market developments and prospects might not have stimulated farmers to join in POs. In this context potential incentives to encourage farmers to enter into joint production agreements have been provided in the reformed Rural Development Policy (support for setting op of POs, new measures on cooperation and eligibility of groups of farmers for a series of rural development measures). Furthermore, the possibilities for extension of certain rules of POs and compulsory contributions for non-members might stimulate the creation of large POs.

- Collective negotiations under the Milk Package have been conducted by recognised POs in four Member States. Such negotiations lead to actual deliveries in 2013, varying between 4 to 33% of the total deliveries in the respective Member States. Regulation of supply for PDO/PGI cheese has, so far, been provided by 2 Member States for 3 cheeses. Further initiatives have been announced.

- Inter-branch organisations (IBOs) : the possibilities for extension of rules and financial contributions referred to above also apply for interbranch organisations (IBOs) and might be an incentive for their creation. So far, IBOs have been recognised in four Member States. It is too early to see significant effects of the Milk Package on the milk sector in disadvantaged regions. In so far as data are available and based on the variety of criteria used by Member States to identify "disadvantaged regions", the trends of milk production in those regions vary significantly between Member States and between regions within the same Member State. Nevertheless, in several Member States the share of deliveries to cooperative processors in disadvantaged regions is reported to be higher than in other regions. It was not possible to obtain concrete data on activities of POs in disadvantaged regions.

- Under the new CAP (2014-2020) , the dairy sector is equipped with a safety net (intervention buying-in for butter and skimmed milk powder, private storage aid for butter , skimmed milk powder and PDO/PGI cheeses), coupled with a regulatory framework for the Commission to react to exceptional circumstances (e.g. extension of the intervention buying-in period, private storage aid for other dairy products, export refunds, authorise a temporary derogation from competition rules as regards agreements and decisions of recognised organisations to take certain measures, exceptional counter-cyclical payments). In addition, milk producers benefit from direct payments and rural development programmes, under which Member States enjoy a considerable leeway to target measures specifically to the milk sector.

- Creation of a milk market observatory : the idea of a European Milk Market Observatory was launched in 2013 and is currently being implemented by the Commission services. The Observatory is a tool within the European Commission responsible for the dissemination of market data and short-term analysis for the dairy market, with the involvement of producers, processors, trade and retail as well as independent experts, and the ambition of addressing the growing need for transparency through more detailed and timely information. Stakeholders contribute with their expertise and market knowledge, adding a qualitative aspect to the quantitative approach of data collection and market analysis. The ultimate objective is to give quantitative and qualitative tools for economic operators to increase their market awareness and help them with their business decisions. The Observatory will also be in a position to send early warnings to the Commission services, when the market situation so requires.

Next steps : the Commission will pursue the debate to address these concerns. In particular, it will explore the need and scope for additional tools for better anticipating crisis situations and for coping better with crisis situations and market volatility. Additionally, further analysis is needed to find more efficient ways of supporting the milk sector so as to contribute to improved competitiveness and sustainability of milk supply across the EU after thirty years of milk quotas. The debate on the instruments already in force and the need for additional ones will take place without delay, before the next Commission report on the operation of the Milk Package and on market developments scheduled for 2018.

2014/06/13
   EC - Follow-up document
2014/01/30
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2013/12/20
   Final act published in Official Journal
Details

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007

(Official Journal of the European Union L 347 of 20 December 2013)

Article 141(2)(a)(ii): for:

‘(ii) between 1 February and 31 August of the current marketing year for other quantities of beet sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup being carried forward;', read: ‘(ii) between 1 February and 31 August of the current marketing year for quantities of beet sugar or inulin syrup being carried forward;'.

2013/12/17
   CSL - Draft final act
Documents
2013/12/17
   CSL - Final act signed
2013/12/16
   EP/CSL - Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
2013/12/16
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2013/12/16
   CSL - Council Meeting
2013/11/20
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2013/11/20
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2013/11/20
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 426 votes to 253 with 8 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).

Parliament adopted its position in first reading following the ordinary legislative procedure. The amendments adopted in plenary were the result of a compromise between Parliament and Council. They amend the Commission proposal as follows:

Scope : this Regulation should apply to all agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to ensure the existence of a common organisation of the market for all such products.

Public intervention and aid for private storage : durum wheat shall be added to the list of products eligible for public intervention. It is stipulated that where public intervention is open, measures on fixing buying-in prices for common wheat, butter, skimmed milk powder, durum wheat, barley, maize, paddy rice, beef and veal as well as, where applicable, measures on quantitative limitations where buying-in is carried out at a fixed price shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) of the Treaty.

Aid for private storage may be granted for fresh or chilled meat of bovine animals aged 8 months or more as well as for cheese.

The Commission may adopt delegated acts:

· in order to ensure that products bought in under public intervention or subject to aid for private storage are suitable for long-term storage and of fair, sound and marketable quality ;

· in order to ensure appropriate storage capacity and the efficiency of the public intervention system in terms of cost effectiveness, distribution and access for operators.

Aid schemes intended to improve access to food : according to the amended Regulation, aid schemes intended to improve the distribution of agricultural products and improving children’s eating habits are aimed at children who regularly attend nurseries, pre-schools or, primary or secondary-level educational establishments which are administered or recognised by the competent authorities of Member States.

School fruit schemes : accompanying measures may include information on measures for education about healthy eating habits, about local food chains and about combating food wastage, that are necessary to make the scheme effective.

Measures on fixing the Union aid shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) of the Treaty.

The Union aid shall be allocated to each Member State on the basis of objective criteria based on their proportion of six- to ten-year old children. Member States participating in the scheme shall apply every year for Union aid on the basis of their strategy.

School milk programmes : as of 1 August 2015 Member States, at national or regional level, wishing to participate in the scheme shall draw up a prior strategy for its implementation. Member States shall draw up a list of milk and milk products that will be eligible under their respective schemes.

Except for free distribution of meals to children in educational establishments, Union aid shall not be used to replace funding for any existing national milk and milk products schemes or other school distribution schemes that include milk or milk products.

Food distribution to the most deprived : the existing scheme should be the subject of a separate regulation. Provision should nevertheless be made in the Regulation to allow for disposal of products held in public intervention by making them available for use in the scheme.

Marketing standards : these should be divided between obligatory rules for specific sectors or products and optional reserved terms to be established on a sectoral or product basis.

The marketing standards should take into account, inter alia, the natural and essential characteristics of the products concerned and the possible risk for consumers being misled due to expectations and perceptions. Standards also include definitions, designations and sales descriptions.

Producer organisations : the Regulation recognised the role of producer organisations and their associations in concentrating supply and improving marketing, planning and adjusting production to demand, optimising production costs and stabilising producer prices.

Parliament also ensured that farmers' organisations will be given additional tools to help farmers cope with market volatility and strengthen their price bargaining position , particularly in the sectors of wine, beef and olive oil.

Wine sector : in order to ensure an orderly growth of vine plantings during the period between 2016 and 2030 , a new system for the management of vine plantings should be established at Union level; a scheme of authorisations for vine plantings .

Under this new system, authorisations may be granted without a cost to be charged to the producers, and should expire after three years if they are not used.

The growth of new vine plantings should be framed by a safeguard mechanism at Union level based on the obligation for Member States to make available annually authorisations for new plantings representing 1 % of the planted vine areas, while allowing for certain flexibility in order to respond to specific circumstances of each Member State.

Member States should be able to decide on making available smaller areas at national or regional levels, including for areas eligible for specific protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI).

Transitional provisions should be laid down in order to ensure a smooth transition between the former planting rights regime and the new scheme, in particular in order to avoid excessive plantings before the start of the new scheme. Member States should have a certain flexibility to decide on the deadline for the presentation of requests for conversion of planting rights into authorisations between 31 December 2015 and 31 December 2020.

Fruit and vegetables : the Regulation laid down additional requirements for marketing products in the fruit and vegetables sector. Furthermore, products of the fruit and vegetables sector intended to be sold fresh to the consumer should be marketed only if they are sound, fair and of marketable quality and if the country of origin is indicated. a certification procedure for products of the hops sector was added.

Documents
2013/11/06
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
Details

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted the report by Michel DANTIN (EPP, FR) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).

The committee recommended that the Parliament’s position adopted at first reading, following the ordinary legislative procedure, should amend the Commission proposal. The main amendments were as follows:

Scope : this Regulation should apply to all agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to ensure the existence of a common organisation of the market for all such products.

Public intervention and aid for private storage : durum wheat shall be added to the list of products eligible for public intervention. It is stipulated that where public intervention is open, measures on fixing buying-in prices for common wheat, butter, skimmed milk powder, durum wheat, barley, maize, paddy rice, beef and veal as well as, where applicable, measures on quantitative limitations where buying-in is carried out at a fixed price shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) of the Treaty.

Aid for private storage may be granted for fresh or chilled meat of bovine animals aged 8 months or more as well as for cheese.

The Commission may adopt delegated acts:

in order to ensure that products bought in under public intervention or subject to aid for private storage are suitable for long-term storage and of fair, sound and marketable quality ; in order to ensure appropriate storage capacity and the efficiency of the public intervention system in terms of cost effectiveness, distribution and access for operators.

Aid schemes intended to improve access to food : according to the amended Regulation, aid schemes intended to improve the distribution of agricultural products and improving children’s eating habits are aimed at children who regularly attend nurseries, pre-schools or, primary or secondary-level educational establishments which are administered or recognised by the competent authorities of Member States.

School fruit schemes : accompanying measures may include information on measures for education about healthy eating habits, about local food chains and about combating food wastage, that are necessary to make the scheme effective.

Measures on fixing the Union aid shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) of the Treaty.

The Union aid shall be allocated to each Member State on the basis of objective criteria based on their proportion of six- to ten-year old children. Member States participating in the scheme shall apply every year for Union aid on the basis of their strategy.

School milk programmes : as of 1 August 2015 Member States, at national or regional level, wishing to participate in the scheme shall draw up a prior strategy for its implementation. Member States shall draw up a list of milk and milk products that will be eligible under their respective schemes.

Except for free distribution of meals to children in educational establishments, Union aid shall not be used to replace funding for any existing national milk and milk products schemes or other school distribution schemes that include milk or milk products.

Food distribution to the most deprived : the existing scheme should be the subject of a separate regulation. Provision should nevertheless be made in this Regulation to allow for disposal of products held in public intervention by making them available for use in the scheme.

Union scales for the classification of carcasses : Union scales for the classification of carcasses shall apply in accordance with Annex IIIa in the beef and veal sector as regards carcasses of bovine animals aged 8 months or more and in the pigmeat sector as regards pigs other than those that have been used for breeding.

Olive oil : the Union shall finance three-year work programmes to be drawn up by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations or the interbranch organisations in one or more of the following areas: (i) market follow-up and management in the olive oil and table olives sector; (ii) the improvement of the competitiveness of olive cultivation through modernisation; (iii) the dissemination of information on measures carried out by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations or interbranch organisations to improve the quality of olive oil and table olives.

Fruit and vegetables : operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector shall have a minimum duration of three years and a maximum duration of five years. The objectives are as follows: planning of production, including production and consumption forecasting and follow-up; improvement of product quality, whether in a fresh or processed form.

Products of the fruit and vegetables sector which are intended to be sold fresh to the consumer may only be marketed if they are sound, fair and of marketable quality and if the country of origin is indicated.

Wine sector : in order to ensure an orderly growth of vine plantings during the period between 2016 and 2030 , a new system for the management of vine plantings should be established at Union level; a scheme of authorisations for vine plantings .

Under this new system, authorisations may be granted without a cost to be charged to the producers, and should expire after three years if they are not used.

The growth of new vine plantings should be framed by a safeguard mechanism at Union level based on the obligation for Member States to make available annually authorisations for new plantings representing 1 % of the planted vine areas, while allowing for certain flexibility in order to respond to specific circumstances of each Member State.

Member States should be able to decide on making available smaller areas at national or regional levels, including for areas eligible for specific protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI).

Transitional provisions should be laid down in order to ensure a smooth transition between the former planting rights regime and the new scheme, in particular in order to avoid excessive plantings before the start of the new scheme. Member States should have a certain flexibility to decide on the deadline for the presentation of requests for conversion of planting rights into authorisations between 31 December 2015 up to 31 December 2020.

Milk sector : in order to ensure the viable development of production and thus a fair standard of living for dairy farmers, their bargaining power vis-à-vis processors should be strengthened which should result in a fairer distribution of value-added along the supply chain. Therefore, in order to attain these CAP objectives, a provision should be adopted to allow producer organisations constituted by dairy farmers or their associations to negotiate jointly contract terms , including price, for some or all of its members' raw milk production with a dairy.

In view of the importance of PDO and PGI and in order to maintain the quality of cheeses , Member States should be allowed to apply rules to regulate the entire supply of such cheese produced in the defined geographical area at the request of an interbranch organisation, a producer organisation.

Hops : in order to allow the hop producer organisations to continue their activities as before, a specific provision should be made for equivalent amounts to be used in the Member State concerned for the same activities. The power to adopt certain acts should be delegated to the Commission in respect of aid applications, rules on eligible hop areas and the calculation of aids. A quality policy should be followed throughout the Union by applying a certification procedure for products of the hops sector and by prohibiting the marketing of such products for which a certificate has not been issued.

Apiculture sector : the amended text stipulated the measures that may be included in the beekeeping programme. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in order to ensure that the Union aid scheme is adapted to the latest developments and that the measures covered are effective in reaching an improvement in the general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products.

Documents
2013/09/30
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading
2013/09/23
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2013/09/23
   CSL - Council Meeting
2013/07/15
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2013/07/15
   CSL - Council Meeting
2013/06/24
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2013/06/24
   CSL - Council Meeting
2013/05/13
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2013/05/13
   CSL - Council Meeting
2013/04/22
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2013/04/22
   CSL - Council Meeting
2013/03/19
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2013/03/19
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/12/20
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/12/20
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/12/18
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2012/12/18
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/12/12
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
Documents
2012/11/28
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2012/11/28
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/11/27
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2012/11/15
   IT_SENATE - Contribution
Documents
2012/11/08
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2012/10/22
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

Ministers held three orientation debates within the framework of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform. The discussions focussed on specific issues in:

the proposal for a regulation establishing rules for direct payments to farmers within the framework of the reform of the CAP (Direct Payments Regulation); the proposal for a regulation establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).

The debate on the Single CMO Regulation revolves around the two following aspects of the proposal:

1) Compulsory recognition of producer organisations: delegations generally agreed with the objective of strengthening the position of primary producers in the food chain, but views differed on how this could best be achieved. There was insufficient support for the proposed compulsory recognition of producer and inter-branch organisations in all sectors, nor for adding specific other sectors to those already subject to such recognition (POs are recognised only in the milk, fruit and vegetables, olive oil and table olives and for some other minor sectors while IBOs are recognised for fruit and vegetables, tobacco and olive oil/ table olives).

2) Competition rules: most delegations supported the Commission proposal but a number of delegations considered that more work needed to be done at a technical level with regard to the approach to producer organisations with a dominant position in the market.

The Council is expected to adopt a partial general approach on the single CMO and on the other CAP reform proposals by the end of the year under the Cypriot Presidency.

Documents
2012/10/22
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/10/16
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2012/09/25
   EC - Supplementary legislative basic document
Details

OBJECTIVE: to amend the Commission proposal establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).

CONTEXT: on 12 October 2011 the Commission adopted its proposal for a Regulation establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).

The accession of Croatia to the EU is scheduled for 1 July 2013. Although the Act of Accession has not yet been ratified by all Member States, the Commission has recently updated its Multi-Annual Financial Framework proposals in view of Croatia's accession. A similar adjustment exercise should be prepared for the CAP reform proposals to ensure that once they are adopted, Croatia will be fully covered as a new Member State.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: there was no need for consultation of interested parties or an impact assessment since, in relation to Croatia, these adjustments follow from the Act of Accession, and in relation to the voluntary adjustment for the United Kingdom, from the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 671/2012.

CONTENT: the adjustment will take the form of an amendment to the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), to include in the proposal those provisions specific to Croatia which are already in the Accession Treaty, notably those which concern:

· wine (transitional measures, inclusion of the wine names to be protected for Croatia in the electronic register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, deadlines for submission and examination of the complete technical files and acts under which those names have been recognised, financial allocation to Croatia for the national support programme in the wine sector, wine-growing zones in Croatia);

· and translation of Croatian sales description for meat of bovine animals aged less than 12 months.

For the sugar and milk quotas in Croatia, the Single CMO proposal makes reference to the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 which remain in place until the expiration of quotas in 2015, as for the other 27 Member States.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION: this amendment has no budgetary implications, apart from those already set out in the explanatory memorandum for the updated proposals for the Multi-Annual Financial Framework .

2012/09/24
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The proposal for a Single CMO regulation is part of the CAP reform package and lays down rules for the common organisation of agricultural markets. It aims to streamline, simplify and adapt provisions on the basis of experience on public intervention, private storage, exceptional/emergency measures and aid to specific sectors.

Ministers considered specifically the safety net function of market management measures and the possible need for updating reference prices.

Many delegations considered the improved safety net as proposed by the Commission to be sufficiently effective. A number of those Member States expressed concerns on the likely budgetary impact of any meaningful adjustment of the safety net. Several delegations saw merit in examining the feasibility of introducing a mechanism to allow future updates of reference prices, so as to ensure they reflect the real market situation. No clear view emerged however on how such a mechanism would exactly work and under what conditions it would apply. There were particular concerns from several member states about sectors facing particular difficulties, including the livestock and dairy, sectors. Some delegations expressed the view that increasing reference prices would send a wrong signal to WTO partners and would not contribute to a sustainable future of the European agricultural sector. There were also calls for phasing out export refunds under the CAP.

The CAP reform package was presented by the Commission at the Agriculture Council meeting in October 2011. Since then, the Council has held general policy debates on the CAP reform proposals almost monthly.

Documents
2012/09/24
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/08/19
   IT_CHAMBER - Contribution
Documents
2012/07/25
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/07/25
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/07/25
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/07/24
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/07/23
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/07/20
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/07/19
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/07/16
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

Ministers held two orientation debates in the framework of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform. The discussions focussed on specific issues in:

· the proposal for a regulation on support for rural development (rural development regulation);

· the proposal for a regulation establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO regulation).

As far as the Single CMO is concerned, the debate focused on the following issues:

Exceptional support measures: t here was broad support within the Council for the proposed exceptional support measures. Nonetheless, some Member States considered that the proposed approach was not sufficiently ambitious and that more might be done.

Market disturbances (Article 154): some delegations would prefer to have a clear definition of crisis or more reassurance that this measure would only be used in truly exceptional situations. On the other hand, many of the delegations considered that the Commission must be able to react swiftly and flexibly to unpredictable situations and factors. A majority of the Member States supported extending the scope of this provision to all products (i.e. the deletion of Article 154(2)).

Measures concerning animal disease and loss of consumer confidence due to public, animal or plant health risks (Article 155) : most of the countries were satisfied with the Presidency text and the extension of the scope of measures on loss in consumer confidence to all sectors of the single CMO. Some delegations also asked for an increased EU co-financing rate.

Measures to resolve specific problems: (Article 156): most Member States acknowledged the importance of this provision and were in favour of maintaining a high degree of flexibility for the Commission to act.

Documents
2012/07/16
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/06/21
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2012/06/18
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Presidency presented to the ministers its progress report on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) ( 8949/12 ).

Member states broadly welcomed the progress report and overall considered it a fair and accurate reflection of the debate in the Council, which would it lay a solid foundation for the next steps in the process under the Cypriot and Irish Presidencies. They also noted that the next presidencies had to deepen discussions on the open issues. Some delegations commented on issues of importance to them, particularly in relation to capping, convergence of direct payments and greening .

This progress report highlights the progress achieved during the first half of 2012 on the CAP reform proposals. It has been drawn up under the responsibility of the Presidency on the basis of the positions expressed within the Council and its preparatory bodies during this semester. It makes clear that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The report highlights the efforts made by the Presidency, especially on increased flexibility, simplification and greening. It indicates the main amendments suggested to the Commission proposals and on which the Presidency has noted broad support from delegations.

The Presidency's suggested amendments aim to resolve a number of issues raised by delegations, particularly with a view to ensuring that future CAP legislation is workable in practice and can be implemented in a cost-effective manner.

This report also identifies for each of the proposals the key issues which remain outstanding as at June 2012, including issues contained in the negotiating box for heading 2 of the Multiannual financial framework (MFF).

The report distinguishes between three categories of issues:

issues on which there is broad support among delegations for the amendments suggested by the Presidency to the Commission proposals; issues which remain outstanding as at June 2012; issues which are included in the negotiating box of the Multi-Annual Financial Framework and which the European Council will ultimately decide upon.

Single CMO proposal : the key issues raised on the proposal are :

the scope of the future market management measures, the exceptional support measures, the reserve for crises in the agricultural sector, the future of the sugar quota regime and the system of vine planting rights, measures to improve the functioning of the food supply chain, and Lisbon alignment.

Delegations generally support the safety net function of the market management measures proposed by the Commission. Delegations also broadly support the amendments included in the Presidency text to resolve issues relating to carcase classification, apiculture, the provisions on school fruit and school milk; wine; trade; state aid rules; competition; sugar sector agreements; communication and reporting; market and exceptional measures, reserve for crisis as well as the provisions on the sectors of olive oil and tables olives, fruit and vegetables, wine.

Delegations also broadly support the intention of incorporating the milk package as adopted into the main body of the text.

A number of delegations call for further adjustments, particularly the introduction of a mechanism to update the level of reference prices on which other delegations support the proposal. Some delegations also request to keep public intervention for durum wheat and sorghum, and keep mandatory private storage aid for butter.

Several delegations want to change the proposed definition of adult bovine by increasing the age . Some delegations call for the phasing-out of export refunds irrespective of the outcome of WTO discussions, but others consider export refunds as a useful and justified tool, which should be used as long as the EU's international obligations allow so.

There is broad support for the proposed extension of exceptional support measures to all sectors.

The issue of the reserve for crises in the agricultural sector is included in the Negotiating Box of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).

The proposal does not provide for a prolongation of the current sugar quota regime due to expire on 30 September 2015. A majority of delegations oppose the end of this regime, and would like it extended, while some support the planned expiry.

A large number of delegations call for the continuation of the existing system of vine planting rights beyond 2015 . Other delegations have reserves on this request recalling that the expiry of the regime was an integral part of the 2008 wine sector reform. The Commission has set up a High Level Group to examine this issue, which is expected to present its recommendations in November 2012.

To strengthen the bargaining power of farmers and the functioning of the food supply chain , the Commission proposes to extend current provisions for the fruit and vegetables sector to producer organisations (POs) and inter-branch organisations (IBOs) in all sectors. A majority of delegations oppose the proposed obligatory recognition of these organisations in all sectors, and hence support the Presidency suggested amendment whereby recognition is voluntary .

Documents
2012/06/18
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/06/07
   IE_HOUSES-OF-OIREACHTAS - Contribution
Documents
2012/06/05
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2012/05/04
   CofR - Committee of the Regions: opinion
Documents
2012/05/01
   IT_SENATE - Contribution
Documents
2012/03/28
   CZ_SENATE - Contribution
Documents
2012/02/06
   EP - LA VIA Giovanni (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2012/02/01
   UK_HOUSE-OF-LORDS - Contribution
Documents
2012/01/23
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2012/01/23
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/01/02
   LU_CHAMBER - Contribution
Documents
2011/12/19
   DE_BUNDESRAT - Contribution
Documents
2011/12/15
   BG_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2011/12/14
   EDPS - Document attached to the procedure
Details

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the legal proposals for the common agricultural policy after 2013.

On 12 October 2011, the Commission adopted a package of seven proposals on the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2013 that were sent to the EDPS for consultation on the same day.

The Proposals aim at providing a framework for (1) viable food production, (2) sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, and (3) balanced territorial development. To this end, they establish several support schemes for farmers as well as other measures to stimulate agricultural and rural development.

In the course of these programmes, personal data — mainly relating to aid beneficiaries but also to third parties — are processed at various stages (processing of aid applications, ensuring the transparency of payments, control and fight against fraud, etc.) While the bulk of the processing is carried out by and under the responsibility of the Member States, the Commission is able to access most of these data. Beneficiaries and in some instances third parties (-e.g. for the purpose of fraud checks — have to provide information to the designated competent authorities.)

The EDPS welcomes that references to the applicability of Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 are included in the preambles of the proposed Regulation on direct payments , the proposed Regulation establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products , the proposed Regulation on rural development and the proposed “horizontal” Regulation .

The goal of this Opinion is not to analyse the whole set of proposals, but to offer input and guidance for designing the processing of personal data necessary for the administration of the CAP in a way that respects the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection.

To this end, the present Opinion is structured in two parts: a first, more general part includes analysis and recommendations relevant for most of the proposals. This mostly refers to comments on delegated and implementing powers for the Commission. A second part then discusses specific provisions contained in several of the proposals and gives recommendations to address the issues identified therein.

Delegated and implementing acts : in general, it is observed that many questions central to data protection are not included in the present proposals, but will be regulated by implementing or delegated acts. This applies, for example, to measures to be adopted regarding the monitoring of aid, the establishment of IT systems, transfers of information to third countries and on-the-spot checks.

However, The EDPS considers that the central aspects of the processing envisaged in the proposals and the necessary data protection safeguards cannot be regarded as ‘non-essential elements’, as required by Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Therefore, at least the following elements should be regulated in the main legislative texts in order to increase legal certainty:

· the specific purpose of every processing operation should be explicitly stated. This is especially relevant as regards publication of personal data and transfers to third countries;

· the categories of data to be processed should be specified;

· access rights should be clarified, in particular as regards access to data by the Commission. In this regard, it should be specified that the Commission may only process personal data where necessary, e.g. for control purposes;

· maximum retention periods should be laid down, as in some cases only minimum retention periods are mentioned in the proposals;

· the rights of data subjects should be specified, especially as regards the right of information; while beneficiaries might be aware of their data being processed, third parties should also be adequately informed that their data could be used for control purposes;

· the scope and the purpose of transfers to third countries should also be limited to what is necessary end should be fixed in an appropriate manner in the proposals.

Once these elements are specified in the main legislative proposals, delegated or implementing acts might be used to implement in more detail these specific safeguards. The EDPS expects to be consulted in this regard.

Rights of data subjects : the rights of data subjects should be specified, especially as regards the right of information and the right of access. This is especially relevant as regards the horizontal regulation, according to which commercial documents of beneficiaries, but also of suppliers, customers, carriers and other third parties can be checked. While beneficiaries might be aware of their data being processed, third parties should also be adequately informed that their data could be used for control purposes (e.g. by a privacy notice to be given at the moment of collection and information provided on all relevant websites and documents). The obligation to inform data subjects, including third parties, should be included in the proposals.

Security measures : in addition, security measures should be provided at least by implementing or delegated acts, especially as regards computerised databases and systems. The principles of accountability and Privacy by Design should also be taken into account.

Prior check : lastly, taking into account that in some cases data relating to (suspected) offences may be processed (e.g. related to fraud), a prior check by the competent national DPAs or the EDPS may be needed.

2011/12/14
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2011/12/11
   RO_SENATE - Contribution
Documents
2011/11/07
   EP - SCHNIEBER-JASTRAM Birgit (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in DEVE
2011/10/25
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
2011/10/20
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

Ministers held an exchange of views on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package thus launching within the Council the debate on the future of the CAP for the months ahead:

Direct payments : several Member States raised concerns or stated their opposition to the proposed redistribution of payments between Member States.

On the proposed greening of the first pillar while they generally could agree with the introduction of "greening" measures in the first pillar, several questioned the compulsory character of the proposed measures or challenged the proposed 30% proportion of direct payment envelopes devoted to this "greening". In addition some delegations expressed their opposition to progressive reduction and capping of direct payments amounts. The proposed definition of "active farmer" also raised many questions. Actions proposed in favour of small farms and young farmers were generally well received.

Moreover, a vast majority of delegations raised concerns that the direct payments and rural development proposals seemed to run counter to the important objective of simplification of the CAP.

Market management mechanisms : most of the Member States acknowledged the measures proposed by the Commission. They noted in particular the importance of extending the existing possibilities to allow the Commission to take emergency measures.

Some Member States regretted the Commission's intention to stick to the abolition of the sugar quota system for 2015, while others welcomed the confirmation that the sugar sector would be liberalised after 2015. Several delegations welcomed the proposals to strengthen the role of the farmer in the food supply chain with mandatory recognition of producers and interbranch organisations, while others were concerned that this would imply the risk of competition distortion.

The Council will hold two more policy debates on the CAP reform proposals before the end of the year: one on direct payments in November and another on rural development in December 2011 .

It should be noted that the Commission prepared the CAP reform package following the interinstitutional debate initiated by its communication The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future and on the basis of impact assessments for the various policies. The new rules should enter into force on 1 January 2014.

In March 2011, the Council took note of the Presidency conclusions on the Commission communication supported by a very large number of Member States. These conclusions on the communication followed an initial exchange of views and three policy debates focusing on the three main objectives of the future CAP identified in the Commission communication, namely: (i) viable food production ; (ii) sustainable management of natural resources and climate action , and (iii) balanced territorial development .

Documents
2011/10/20
   CSL - Council Meeting
2011/10/12
   EC - Legislative proposal
Details

PURPOSE: to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 (Single CMO).

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

BACKGROUND: the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2014-2020 . The current reform proposals are based on the Communication on the CAP towards 2020 that outlined broad policy options in order to respond to the future challenges for agriculture and rural areas and to meet the objectives set for the CAP, namely (1) viable food production ; (2) sustainable management of natural resources and climate action; and (3) balanced territorial development .

A common theme that has emerged throughout this process is the need to promote resource efficiency with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for EU agriculture and rural areas in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, keeping the structure of the CAP around two pillars that use complementary instruments in pursuit of the same objectives.

Pillar I covers direct payments and market measures providing a basic annual income support to EU farmers and support in case of specific market disturbances. Pillar II covers rural development where Member States draw up and co-finance multiannual programmes under a common framework.

The framework set out in the Commission proposal for the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (MFF) proposal foresees that the CAP should maintain its two-pillar structure with the budget for each pillar maintained in nominal terms at its 2013 level and with a clear focus on delivering results on the key EU priorities.

Direct payments should promote sustainable production by assigning 30% of their budgetary envelope to mandatory measures that are beneficial to climate and the environment. Payment levels should progressively converge and payments to large beneficiaries be subject to progressive capping. Rural development should be included in a Common Strategic Framework with other EU shared management funds with a reinforced outcome-orientated approach and subject to clearer, improved ex-ante conditionalities. Finally, on market measures the financing of the CAP should be reinforced with two instruments outside the MFF: (1) an emergency reserve to react to crisis situations; and (2) the extension of the scope of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund.

On this basis, the main elements of the legislative framework for the CAP during the period 2014-2020 are set out in the following regulations:

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy ('the direct payments regulation');

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) ('the Single CMO regulation') ; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) ('the rural development regulation'); Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy ('the horizontal regulation'); Proposal for a Council Regulation determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine-growers .

The rural development regulation builds on the proposal presented by the Commission on 6 October 2011 that sets out common rules for all funds operating under a Common Strategic Framework. A regulation will follow on the scheme for most deprived persons, for which funding is now placed under a different heading of the MFF.

In addition, new rules on the publication of information on beneficiaries taking account of the objections expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union are also under preparation with a view to finding the most appropriate way to reconcile beneficiaries' right to protection of personal data with the principle of transparency.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the three scenarios elaborated in the impact assessment are:

an adjustment scenario that continues with the current policy framework while addressing its most important shortcomings, such as the distribution of direct payments; an integration scenario that entails major policy changes in the form of enhanced targeting and greening of direct payments and reinforced strategic targeting for rural development policy in better coordination with other EU policies, as well as extending the legal base for a broader scope of producer cooperation; and a refocus scenario that reorients the policy exclusively towards the environment with a progressive phasing out of direct payments, assuming that productive capacity can be maintained without support and that the socio-economic needs of rural areas can be served by other policies.

The impact assessment concludes that the integration scenario is the most balanced in progressively aligning the CAP with the EU's strategic objectives. It will also be essential to develop an evaluation framework to measure the performance of the CAP with a common set of indicators linked to policy objectives.

LEGAL BASIS: the first subparagraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

CONTENT: the Single CMO regulation lays down rules for the common organisation of agricultural markets, with the aid scheme for the most deprived to be placed under a separate instrument.

Dairy sector : the 2008-2009 dairy crisis showed the need to maintain an effective safety net mechanism as well as to streamline available tools. The discussions in the High Level Expert Group on Milk that followed also pointed to the need to improve the functioning of the food chain. The regulation thus aims to streamline, expand and simplify provisions on the basis of experience to date with public intervention, private storage, exceptional/emergency measures and aid to specific sectors as well as to facilitate cooperation through producer and interbranch organisations.

Sectoral aids : certain sectoral aids are removed (e.g. skimmed milk, hops and silkworms). The milk quota system and the wine planting ban are set to expire under existing legislation which is thus left unchanged in this respect. Sugar quotas are set to expire by 30 September 2015. A single animal disease / loss of consumer confidence provision and a general market disturbance clause are provided with the latter expanded to cover all sectors in the current Single CMO.

Producer organisations and their associations : the product coverage for recognition of producer organisations and their associations as well as interbranch organisations by Member States is expanded to all sectors in the current Single CMO. Support for the setting up of producer groups in the fruit and vegetable sector is moved to rural development.

Compulsory written contracts : the Regulation reflects the proposal already made for the milk sector that set out basic conditions if Member States make written contracts compulsory with a view to strengthening the bargaining power of milk producers in the food chain. It also reflects the proposal already made on marketing standards in the context of the quality package.

From a simplification perspective, doing away with certain sectoral aids, the decoupling of the aid scheme in the silk worm sector, ending the sugar quota system and removing the requirements for registration of supply contracts and for attestation of equivalence in the hops sector will positively impact the burden on Member States and red tape for operators. It will no longer be necessary to maintain a capacity to implement the sectoral aid schemes and to allocate resources to control them.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION: in current prices, it is proposed that the CAP should focus on its core activities with EUR 317.2 billion allocated to Pillar I and EUR 101.2 billion to Pillar II over the 2014-2020 period.

The Pillar I and Pillar II funding is complemented by additional funding of EUR 17.1 billion consisting of:

EUR 5.1 billion for research and innovation, EUR 2.5 billion for food safety and EUR 2.8 billion for food support for the most deprived persons in other headings of the MFF, EUR 3.9 billion in a new reserve for crises in the agricultural sector, up to EUR 2.8 billion in the European Globalization Adjustment Fund outside the MFF, thus bringing the total budget to EUR 435.6 billion over the 2014-2020 period.

The total budget to EUR 435.6 billion over the 2014-2020 period .

Distribution of support among Member States : it is proposed that all Member States with direct payments below 90% of the EU average will see one third of this gap closed. The national ceilings in the direct payments regulation are calculated on this basis.

Rural development aid : this is based on objective criteria linked to the policy objectives taking into account the current distribution. As is the case today, less developed regions should continue to benefit from higher co-financing rates, which will also apply to certain measures such as knowledge transfer, producer groups, cooperation and Leader.

Lastly, some flexibility for transfers between pillars is introduced (up to 5% of direct payments): from Pillar I to Pillar II to allow Member States to reinforce their rural development policy, and from Pillar II to Pillar I for those Member States where the level of direct payments remains below 90% of the EU average.

DELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions empowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2011/10/12
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2011/10/12
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2011/10/12
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 (Single CMO).

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

BACKGROUND: the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2014-2020 . The current reform proposals are based on the Communication on the CAP towards 2020 that outlined broad policy options in order to respond to the future challenges for agriculture and rural areas and to meet the objectives set for the CAP, namely (1) viable food production ; (2) sustainable management of natural resources and climate action; and (3) balanced territorial development .

A common theme that has emerged throughout this process is the need to promote resource efficiency with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for EU agriculture and rural areas in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, keeping the structure of the CAP around two pillars that use complementary instruments in pursuit of the same objectives.

Pillar I covers direct payments and market measures providing a basic annual income support to EU farmers and support in case of specific market disturbances. Pillar II covers rural development where Member States draw up and co-finance multiannual programmes under a common framework.

The framework set out in the Commission proposal for the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (MFF) proposal foresees that the CAP should maintain its two-pillar structure with the budget for each pillar maintained in nominal terms at its 2013 level and with a clear focus on delivering results on the key EU priorities.

Direct payments should promote sustainable production by assigning 30% of their budgetary envelope to mandatory measures that are beneficial to climate and the environment. Payment levels should progressively converge and payments to large beneficiaries be subject to progressive capping. Rural development should be included in a Common Strategic Framework with other EU shared management funds with a reinforced outcome-orientated approach and subject to clearer, improved ex-ante conditionalities. Finally, on market measures the financing of the CAP should be reinforced with two instruments outside the MFF: (1) an emergency reserve to react to crisis situations; and (2) the extension of the scope of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund.

On this basis, the main elements of the legislative framework for the CAP during the period 2014-2020 are set out in the following regulations:

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy ('the direct payments regulation');

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) ('the Single CMO regulation') ; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) ('the rural development regulation'); Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy ('the horizontal regulation'); Proposal for a Council Regulation determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013; Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine-growers .

The rural development regulation builds on the proposal presented by the Commission on 6 October 2011 that sets out common rules for all funds operating under a Common Strategic Framework. A regulation will follow on the scheme for most deprived persons, for which funding is now placed under a different heading of the MFF.

In addition, new rules on the publication of information on beneficiaries taking account of the objections expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union are also under preparation with a view to finding the most appropriate way to reconcile beneficiaries' right to protection of personal data with the principle of transparency.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the three scenarios elaborated in the impact assessment are:

an adjustment scenario that continues with the current policy framework while addressing its most important shortcomings, such as the distribution of direct payments; an integration scenario that entails major policy changes in the form of enhanced targeting and greening of direct payments and reinforced strategic targeting for rural development policy in better coordination with other EU policies, as well as extending the legal base for a broader scope of producer cooperation; and a refocus scenario that reorients the policy exclusively towards the environment with a progressive phasing out of direct payments, assuming that productive capacity can be maintained without support and that the socio-economic needs of rural areas can be served by other policies.

The impact assessment concludes that the integration scenario is the most balanced in progressively aligning the CAP with the EU's strategic objectives. It will also be essential to develop an evaluation framework to measure the performance of the CAP with a common set of indicators linked to policy objectives.

LEGAL BASIS: the first subparagraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

CONTENT: the Single CMO regulation lays down rules for the common organisation of agricultural markets, with the aid scheme for the most deprived to be placed under a separate instrument.

Dairy sector : the 2008-2009 dairy crisis showed the need to maintain an effective safety net mechanism as well as to streamline available tools. The discussions in the High Level Expert Group on Milk that followed also pointed to the need to improve the functioning of the food chain. The regulation thus aims to streamline, expand and simplify provisions on the basis of experience to date with public intervention, private storage, exceptional/emergency measures and aid to specific sectors as well as to facilitate cooperation through producer and interbranch organisations.

Sectoral aids : certain sectoral aids are removed (e.g. skimmed milk, hops and silkworms). The milk quota system and the wine planting ban are set to expire under existing legislation which is thus left unchanged in this respect. Sugar quotas are set to expire by 30 September 2015. A single animal disease / loss of consumer confidence provision and a general market disturbance clause are provided with the latter expanded to cover all sectors in the current Single CMO.

Producer organisations and their associations : the product coverage for recognition of producer organisations and their associations as well as interbranch organisations by Member States is expanded to all sectors in the current Single CMO. Support for the setting up of producer groups in the fruit and vegetable sector is moved to rural development.

Compulsory written contracts : the Regulation reflects the proposal already made for the milk sector that set out basic conditions if Member States make written contracts compulsory with a view to strengthening the bargaining power of milk producers in the food chain. It also reflects the proposal already made on marketing standards in the context of the quality package.

From a simplification perspective, doing away with certain sectoral aids, the decoupling of the aid scheme in the silk worm sector, ending the sugar quota system and removing the requirements for registration of supply contracts and for attestation of equivalence in the hops sector will positively impact the burden on Member States and red tape for operators. It will no longer be necessary to maintain a capacity to implement the sectoral aid schemes and to allocate resources to control them.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION: in current prices, it is proposed that the CAP should focus on its core activities with EUR 317.2 billion allocated to Pillar I and EUR 101.2 billion to Pillar II over the 2014-2020 period.

The Pillar I and Pillar II funding is complemented by additional funding of EUR 17.1 billion consisting of:

EUR 5.1 billion for research and innovation, EUR 2.5 billion for food safety and EUR 2.8 billion for food support for the most deprived persons in other headings of the MFF, EUR 3.9 billion in a new reserve for crises in the agricultural sector, up to EUR 2.8 billion in the European Globalization Adjustment Fund outside the MFF, thus bringing the total budget to EUR 435.6 billion over the 2014-2020 period.

The total budget to EUR 435.6 billion over the 2014-2020 period .

Distribution of support among Member States : it is proposed that all Member States with direct payments below 90% of the EU average will see one third of this gap closed. The national ceilings in the direct payments regulation are calculated on this basis.

Rural development aid : this is based on objective criteria linked to the policy objectives taking into account the current distribution. As is the case today, less developed regions should continue to benefit from higher co-financing rates, which will also apply to certain measures such as knowledge transfer, producer groups, cooperation and Leader.

Lastly, some flexibility for transfers between pillars is introduced (up to 5% of direct payments): from Pillar I to Pillar II to allow Member States to reinforce their rural development policy, and from Pillar II to Pillar I for those Member States where the level of direct payments remains below 90% of the EU average.

DELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions empowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2011/09/26
   EP - DANTIN Michel (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI

Documents

Votes

A7-0366/2013 - Michel Dantin - Am 1 #

2013/11/20 Outcome: +: 424, -: 251, 0: 11
IT ES RO FR PL HU SK IE PT LT EL HR BG LV FI MT LU SI BE EE CY AT DE CZ NL DK SE GB
Total
62
48
29
68
45
21
13
12
20
11
18
12
17
9
13
5
6
7
21
6
4
18
85
19
22
11
18
65
icon: PPE PPE
244

Malta PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
178

Ireland S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Finland S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

2
icon: EFD EFD
22

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Greece EFD

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom EFD

3
icon: NI NI
29

Italy NI

2

Spain NI

1
2

Hungary NI

For (1)

3

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
4

Croatia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
78

Slovakia ALDE

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Greece ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
51

Spain Verts/ALE

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

5
icon: ECR ECR
52

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0366/2013 - Michel Dantin - Résolution législative #

2013/11/20 Outcome: +: 426, -: 253, 0: 8
IT ES RO FR PL HU SK IE HR LT EL PT FI BG MT LU SI LV BE EE CY AT CZ DE NL DK SE GB
Total
62
48
30
68
47
21
13
12
12
11
18
19
13
17
5
6
7
8
21
6
4
18
19
86
22
10
19
64
icon: PPE PPE
245

Malta PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
176

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

2
icon: EFD EFD
22

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Greece EFD

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Belgium EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom EFD

3
icon: NI NI
29

Italy NI

2

Spain NI

1
2

Ireland NI

For (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Croatia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
4

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Czechia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
79

Spain ALDE

2

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Greece ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

4
icon: ECR ECR
53

Hungary ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
51

Spain Verts/ALE

1

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Portugal Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

5
AmendmentsDossier
2076 2011/0281(COD)
2012/05/30 DEVE 19 amendments...
source: PE-489.685
2012/07/19 AGRI 303 amendments...
source: PE-492.801
2012/07/20 AGRI 358 amendments...