Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | AGRI | LA VIA Giovanni ( PPE) | CAPOULAS SANTOS Luis Manuel ( S&D), OLEJNICZAK Wojciech Michał ( S&D), LYON George ( ALDE), EICKHOUT Bas ( Verts/ALE), ASHWORTH Richard ( ECR), SCOTTÀ Giancarlo ( EFD) |
Committee Opinion | DEVE | SCHNIEBER-JASTRAM Birgit ( PPE) | |
Committee Opinion | ENVI | ||
Committee Opinion | REGI | UGGIAS Giommaria ( ALDE) | |
Committee Opinion | BUDG | PAPASTAMKOS Georgios ( PPE) | |
Committee Opinion | CONT | IVANOVA Iliana ( PPE) | Bart STAES ( Verts/ALE), Derek VAUGHAN ( S&D) |
Committee Opinion | EMPL |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 043-p2
Legal Basis:
TFEU 043-p2Events
The Commission presented its report on the implementation of information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2017 and 2018, under Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.
Intensification of communication actions
In the period 2017-2018, the Commission continued to base corporate communication actions on its ten political priorities, focusing on the EU’s contribution to jobs and growth, and the tangible benefits delivered by the EU to its citizens.
The institutional communication campaigns launched in 2017 and 2018 are designed to show how the Union protects, empowers and works in the interests of its citizens. They also aimed to raise public awareness of current and future challenges and the need to build a more united, stronger and more democratic Union.
The budget made available for information measures on the CAP, initially foreseen in the financing decision, was EUR 8 million in 2017 and EUR 8 million in 2018. In addition, in the framework of the Commission's institutional communication actions during this period, an amount of EUR 8.4 million in 2017 and EUR 8.7 million in 2018 was co-delegated by DG AGRI to DG Communication, which is responsible for the management of the institutional campaigns.
Breakdown of shares
The direct and indirect communication actions undertaken in 2017 and 2018 focused on issues related to the preparation of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and on the proposals for sectoral legislation accompanying the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).
The period under review was marked in particular by a major effort to involve citizens and stakeholders across the Union in the Commission's reflections and search for solutions, in the context of the sectoral proposals of the MFF, to the challenges and opportunities facing EU agriculture and rural areas. In a broad public consultation held in the first half of 2017, stakeholders inside and outside the agricultural sector were invited to give their views on the future of the CAP. This public consultation attracted a large public response: more than 322 000 contributions were received.
Grants (co-financed information measures, initiated by third party organisations)
Information measures carried out in relation to the common agricultural policy and rural development sought to raise awareness on the policy’s contribution to economic growth and vibrant rural areas, resource efficiency and climate change mitigation, as well as the provision of food security in the Union.
In 2017, sixteen measures were co-financed. In 2018, twenty measures were cofinanced, making a total of 36 co-financed actions (all at a rate of 60%) for the period 2017-2018. These communication actions have led to increased cooperation between the Commission services, other EU institutions and national and regional authorities.
In 2017 and 2018, the following actions were supported:
- 16 grants were awarded to media and communications agencies for measures promoting awareness at national level of the importance of agriculture and the rural areas for society as a whole;
- support to two environmental organisations at national level for awareness-raising actions on issues related to sustainability and biodiversity, as well as for actions with a transnational dimension proposed by media companies to inform EU citizens about the contribution of the CAP to their daily lives;
- support at national level, an organisation promoting education related to European citizenship, a county council promoting local traditional agricultural products, and a national association active in water/irrigation issues.
Invariably measures included a mix of communication tools (social media, online, print and audiovisual) directed at the farming community, the general public and young people, and often including an educational dimension.
Direct actions/public procurement (information measures carried out at the initiative of the Commission)
During the period 2017-2018, a significant number of information measures were carried out at the initiative of the Commission, such as:
- providing the media with user-friendly information and documents on developments in the CAP and rural development and networking the media through the maintenance of the platform of journalists and communication professionals, www.Ag-Press.eu;
- intensifying dialogue with stakeholders in the context of the preparation of the sectoral MFF proposals and on issues such as the fight against unfair commercial practices in the food chain;
- the educational pack for school children aged between eleven and fifteen years ("edutainment pack") was finalised. It explains in an attractive pedagogical format the role of the farmer and farm families, their contribution to society and the challenges they face.
The Commission presents a report on the implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) and first results on the performance of the common agricultural policy. The CMEF was established with the aim of measuring the performance of the CAP implementation for 2014-2020. For the first time, this framework covered the first pillar (direct payments and market measures) and the second pillar (rural development), as well as horizontal measures (e.g. cross compliance) of the CAP. This initial report describes the design and the implementation of the framework, provides first results on the performance of the CAP on the basis of evidence collected through the CMEF and other studies (e.g. evaluations) and links the lessons learnt with the performance and monitoring and evaluation framework included in the CAP post-2020 proposals.
Initial assessment of the performance of the CAP
Viable food production : the CAP has shifted from product support (through prices) to producer support (through income support, mainly with decoupled payments). This shift reduced the price gap between EU and world market prices over time: the ratio between EU and world market prices of main agricultural commodities (weighted average) declined from 140 % in 2007 to 113 % in 2017.
The EU market is more open: EU imports of agri-food products increased to EUR 117 billion in 2017 (+51 % compared to 2007), with EU imports from least developed countries increasing by more than 75 % since 2007, reaching a value of EUR 3.5 billion in 2017. Price volatility remains lower than for main competitors; e.g. for soft wheat, it was 6.8 % in 2015-2017, whereas on the world market it was 10 %.
Agricultural income: average direct payments per beneficiary amounted to almost EUR 6 200 in 2016 making up a share of 44 % in agricultural entrepreneurial income in the EU-28 with different distribution between farm types and farm size. However, agricultural income in sectors such as beef, sheep and olives and zones such as areas facing natural constraints remains below EU average . A recent World Bank report concludes that the CAP contributes effectively to farm income, and helps reducing the gap between agricultural income and wages received in other economic sectors.
Agricultural productivity : this, expressed as total factor productivity, is increasing steadily but slowly (+0.7% per year over the last five years), with growth in labour productivity contributing most to productivity gains.
Sustainable management of natural resources : greening requirements under direct payments was criticised for the additional burden it entails for farmers and administrations compared to its environmental outcome. A recent evaluation on the payment of agricultural practices beneficial for climate and environment confirms that the current implementation of greening by Member States and farmers could be improved to deliver better on its objectives.
Balanced territorial development agriculture represents 13.5% of total employment in rural areas in 2016 (compared to 12.4% in 2012). The poverty rate in rural areas declined (from 29 % in 2011 to 26 % in 2016 in the EU-28), approaching the poverty rate in the whole economy (25 %). The CAP has therefore an important role in poverty reduction in rural areas and contributes to the creation of better jobs for farmers across the EU.
Knowledge transfer and innovation: more than 492 000 farmers (4.5% of total farmers) have received funding for training and more than 63 500 farmers for advice.
Lessons learned : the proposals for reform of the CAP after 2020 shift emphasis from compliance and rules towards results and performance , with more Member States flexibility to decide how best to meet common objectives. The report sets out the following changes as a result of lessons learned:
-Indicators : experience has shown that there are currently too many indicators and sub-indicators. Some indicators are not available on a yearly basis and certain indicators are missing, e.g. an evaluation on climate change concludes that the limited breakdown of some output indicators impedes having sufficient information on CAP implementation with regard to climate change. In the CAP proposals post-2020 it is proposed to reduce the number of indicators from to 146 to 101.37 This, more targeted, set of indicators has been selected in a way to reflect as closely as possible whether the supported interventions contribute to achieving the objectives.
-Data : the shift to performance-based policy also requires that the quality of the notifications submitted by Member States improve. Therefore in the next CAP, certification bodies will have to ensure the reliability of the performance reporting on outputs and results . Moreover, selected indicators are generally generated by administrative processes or otherwise available, to reduce the administrative burden. There is also a strong need to improve future data availability (both by further data sharing between existing sources and by new technologies.
The Commission presented a report on the implementation of information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2015 and 2016, under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.
The information measures financed aim, in particular, to help explain, implement and develop the CAP and to raise public awareness of its content and objectives to reinstate consumer confidence following crises through information campaigns, to inform farmers and other parties active in rural areas and to promote the European model of agriculture, as well as to help citizens understand it.
The budget made available for information measures under budget line 05 08 06, originally foreseen in the financing decision, was EUR 8 million in 2015; and EUR 8 million in 2016 . Execution of the 2015 measures reached 91.18 % in terms of commitments and 88.60% in terms of payments. Execution of the 2016 measures reached 98.29 % in terms of commitments.
Actions financed : in the reporting period, the Commission continued to develop its corporate communication actions based on its ten political priorities emphasising the tangible benefits delivered by the EU to its citizens.
Grants (co-financed information measures taken at the initiative of third party organisations) : for 2015, the call for proposals aimed to provide information on the reformed CAP and its three core elements, food safety, sustainable management of natural resources, and the development of rural areas .
For 2016, it encouraged information actions on the challenges ahead for agriculture, including sustainable development and the modernisation of Europe's agriculture and the wider rural economy.
Grants were awarded for measures such as information campaigns with a significant trans-national and multi-media element, and measures highlighting sustainability with a strong EU networking focus.
Other awareness raising measures run at national or local level were often identified strongly with the agricultural development needs on the ground. Measures focussed on young people and the general public used the latest on-line and social media tools to connect with the target audience.
Direct actions/public procurement (Commission-led information measures) : increased efforts have been made to mobilise civil society and a wide range of stakeholders, with the aim of fostering closer cooperation in carrying out information campaigns with the Commission services and with other EU institutions and Member States. There was a sustained effort to disseminate to the media relevant user-friendly information on the policy. The AG-Press network, which now includes over 800 active journalists, is a useful tool for the Commission, and network for its members.
The Commission placed emphasis on improving the awareness of the general public about the CAP and participated in various fairs. Actions continued to target citizens and stakeholders, and provide a forum for dialogue with farmers, civil society and the general public on policy issues.
The educational pack for school children aged between eleven and fifteen years ("edutainment pack") was developed in the reporting period, and distributed in early 2017. The aim is to explain in an attractive pedagogical format the role of the farmer and farm families, their contribution to society and the challenges they face.
Lastly, the EU was represented at the World Expo 2015 which took place in Milan from 1 May to 31 October 2015 on the theme "Feeding the Planet: Energy for Life". There were over 650 000 visitors to the EU pavilion.
In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP), the Commission presented a report on the operation of the system of paying agencies in the Union. This report summarises the results of the analysis of the competent authorities' reports received in June 2016 and possible further actions.
The Commission welcomes the steps taken by the certain Member States (Austria, Germany and Poland) to reduce the number of paying agencies .
In addition, the present situation does not indicate major issues as regards compliance with the accreditation criteria . For 66 paying agencies (out of 80 for which the reports were provided in 2016), the compliance with the accreditation criteria was rated as very high.
The review of the communications received from the competent authorities on continued supervision revealed in many cases that the supervision is not continuous . In other situations, the continued compliance report does not mentioned that ongoing continuous supervision or monitoring has taken place.
Following the analysis of the situation with the operation of the paying agency system in the EU in the agricultural sector, the Commission does not propose any modifications to the current legal acts concerning the set-up, numbers of and operations of the paying agencies.
It intends, however, to:
initiate, despite the existence of a derogation for paying agencies that have been in existence before 20 December 2013, discussions with the Member States concerned to determine whether the structure put in place is appropriate and whether agencies with little or no expenditure should continue to exist; guarantee a follow-up, jointly with the relevant competent authorities, to ensure proper and regular supervision.
PURPOSE: to lay down new rules on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2014-2020 (horizontal Regulation).
LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008.
CONTENT: this Regulation is part of a series of measures aiming to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP reform package contains four main legal texts:
· the Regulation establishing rules for direct payments to farmers;
· the Regulation on the common organisation of the market in agricultural products;
· the Regulation on support for rural development;
· this Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP (horizontal Regulation.)
The main objectives of the reform are to make the CAP greener, more equitable and better targeted. The reformed CAP remains a strong common policy structured around its two complementary pillars : direct payments and market management (first pillar) and rural development (second pillar).
This Regulation is called "horizontal" since it brings together the rules relevant for all CAP instruments, previously scattered in various pieces of CAP legislation . It deals in particular with:
Financing, management and control systems , which includes the paying agencies and the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS). In order to be accredited, paying agencies departments or bodies should have an administrative organisation and a system of internal control providing sufficient guarantees that payments are legal and regular, and properly accounted for. Member States should be allowed to maintain the number of paying agencies which have been accredited before the entry into force of this Regulation. Before the end of 2016 , the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the operation of the system of paying agencies in the Union accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals.
The rules applying to direct payments, market measures and rural development have been harmonised in order to create synergies.
Farm advisory system , which is a set of advice services which Member States must set up so as to help farmers understand, in particular, their cross-compliance and greening obligations . That farm advisory system shall be operated by designated public bodies and/or selected private bodies.
Identification system for agricultural parcels : the Regulation stipulates that the identification system for agricultural parcels shall be established on the basis of maps, land registry documents or other cartographic references. Use shall be made of computerised geographical information system techniques, including aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with a homogenous standard that guarantees a level of accuracy that is at least equivalent to that of cartography at a scale of 1:10 000 and, as from 2016, at a scale of 1:5 000 , while taking into account the outline and condition of the parcel. This shall be fixed in accordance with existing Union standards.
Member States shall ensure that the identification system for agricultural parcels contains a reference layer to accommodate ecological focus areas .
Cross-compliance : a system created by the 2003 CAP reform which makes aid and support to farmers subject to compliance with requirements of public interest, notably standards related to environment, animal welfare and the use of plant protection products.
The current rules were reviewed with a view to simplification, strengthening the climate change dimension within GAEC and ensuring consistency with the provisions of greening and of relevant environmental measures offered under rural development.
Suspension of payments and penalties : the Regulation provides the possibility of reducing or suspending payments where there are significant and persistent deficiencies in national control systems should be reinforced in order to provide the Commission with the possibility of suspending payments rapidly when serious deficiencies are detected. That possibility should also be extended to include negligence in the system for recovery of irregular payments.
The Regulation also clarifies the measures concerning the application of the administrative penalties in cases of non-compliance in relation to eligibility criteria, commitments or other obligations resulting from the application of sectoral agricultural legislation. The administrative penalties shall be proportionate and graduated according to the severity, extent, duration and reoccurrence of the non-compliance found.
For "greening", the penalties will be phased in gradually , with no penalties imposed for the first two years of application of greening (claim years 2015 and 2016), and a cap at 20% of the greening payment for claim year 2017 and at 25% as from claim year 2018.
Transparency : the Regulation stipulates that Member States shall ensure annual ex-post publication of the beneficiaries of the Funds in order to r einforce the personal accountability of the farmers for use of public funds received.
In order to strike a balance between the objective of the public control of the use of the CAP funds and the beneficiaries' right to respect for their private life , the names of those beneficiaries receiving an amount lower than the maximum amount of aid possible under the Small Farmers Scheme will not be published. Member States shall inform the beneficiaries that their data will be made public.
Reserve for crises in the agricultural sector : in the context of respecting budget discipline, the Regulation lays down the annual ceiling for the expenditure financed by the EAGF by taking into account the maximum amounts laid down for that Fund under the multiannual financial framework provided for in Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013.
In order to support the agricultural sector in case of major crises affecting the agricultural production or distribution, a reserve for crises should be established by applying, at the beginning of each year, a reduction to direct payments through the financial discipline mechanism.
The total amount of the reserve shall be EUR 2 800 million with equal annual instalments of EUR 400 million (2001 prices) for the period 2014-2020.
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 20.12.2013. The Regulation is applicable from 01.01.2014.
DELEGATED ACTS: the Commission may adopt delegated acts in order to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the Regulation. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission for a period of seven years from 20 December 2013 . The European Parliament or the Council may raise objections with regard to a delegated act within two months of the date of notification (which may be extended by two months). If Parliament or Council raise objections, the delegated act will not enter into force.
The European Parliament adopted by 500 votes to 177 with 10 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.
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:
Accreditation of paying agencies : in order to be accredited, paying agencies responsible for the management and control of expenditure must have an administrative organisation and a system of internal control which provide sufficient guarantees that payments are legal and regular and properly accounted for. Member States will be authorised to maintain the number of paying agencies which have been accredited before the entry into force of the Regulation.
Before the end of 2016, the Commission shall present a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the operation of the system of paying agencies in the Union accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals.
Certification bodies : the certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State. Where it is a private audit body, and the applicable Union or national law so requires, it shall be selected by the Member State by means of a public tendering procedure. It shall provide an opinion, drawn up in accordance with internationally accepted audit standards.
Reserve for crises in the agricultural sector : a reserve for crises in the agricultural sector intended to provide additional support for the sector in case of major crises affecting the agricultural production or distribution shall be established by applying, at the beginning of each year, a reduction to direct payments with the financial discipline mechanism.
The total amount of the reserve shall be EUR 2 800 million with equal annual instalments of EUR 400 million (2011 prices) for the period 2014-2020.
Prefinancing : following the Commission decision approving the rural development programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission to the Member State. This initial pre-financing amount shall be paid in instalments (2014, 2015 et 2016).
Suspension of payments : the possibility for reducing or suspending payments in case of significant and persistent deficiencies in national control systems should be reinforced in order to provide the Commission with the possibility to suspend payments rapidly when serious deficiencies are detected. Such possibility should also be extended by including negligence in the system for recovery of irregular payments.
As regards the EAGF, sums recovered should be paid back to that Fund where the expenditure is not in conformity with Union legislation and no entitlement existed. Member States should request recovery from the beneficiary within 18 months after a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place, has been approved.
Identification system for agricultural parcels : use shall be made of computerised geographical information system techniques, including aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with a homogenous standard guaranteeing accuracy at least equivalent to cartography at a scale of 1: 10 000 and, as from 2016, at a scale of 1:5000, while taking into account the outline and condition of the parcel.
Member States shall ensure that the identification system for agricultural parcels contains a reference layer to accommodate ecological focus areas.
Penalties : Parliament clarified the provisions concerning the application of administrative penalties in case of non-compliance with the eligibility conditions, commitments or other obligations resulting from the
These administrative penalties may take one of the following forms : (I) reduction in the amount of aid or support; (ii) payment of an amount calculated on the basis of the quantity and/or the time concerned by non-compliance; (iii) suspension or withdrawal of an approval, recognition or authorisation; (iv) exclusion from the right to benefit from the aid scheme.
The administrative penalties shall be proportionate and graduated according to the severity, extent, duration and reoccurrence of the non-compliance found. No administrative penalties shall be imposed where the non-compliance is due to force majeure.
In cases of infringement of the sectoral agricultural legislation, where detailed rules on administrative penalties have not been laid down by Union legislative and non-legislative acts, Member States should impose national penalties which should be effective, dissuasive and proportionate.
Transparency : the amended text stipulated that Member States should ensure annual ex post publication of the beneficiaries of the EAGF and the EAFRD. The publication shall contain: (i) the first name and the surname where the beneficiaries are natural persons; (ii) the full legal name as registered where the beneficiaries are legal persons; (iii) the municipality where the beneficiary resides or is registered; (iv) the amounts of payment corresponding to each measure financed by the EAGF and the EAFRD received; (v) the nature and the description of the measures financed.
Member States shall not publish the name of a beneficiary where the amount of aid received in one year by a beneficiary is equal or less than EUR 1250.
Beneficiaries should be informed that their data will be made public and informed of their rights under the data protection rules.
Data shall not be stored in a form that permits identification of data subjects for longer than is necessary for the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted the report by Giovanni LA VIA (EPP, IT) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.
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:
Accreditation of paying agencies and coordinating bodies : Member States shall accredit as paying agencies departments or bodies which have an administrative organisation and a system of internal control which provide sufficient guarantees that payments are legal and regular and properly accounted for.
Before the end of 2016, the Commission shall present a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the operation of the system of paying agencies in the Union accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals.
Certification bodies : the certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State. Where it is a private audit body, and the applicable Union or national law so requires, it shall be selected by the Member State by means of a public tendering procedure. It shall provide an opinion, drawn up in accordance with internationally accepted audit standards.
Reserve for crises in the agricultural sector : a reserve for crises in the agricultural sector intended to provide additional support for the sector in case of major crises affecting the agricultural production or distribution shall be established by applying, at the beginning of each year, a reduction to direct payments with the financial discipline mechanism.
The total amount of the reserve shall be EUR 2 800 million with equal annual instalments of EUR 400 million (2011 prices) for the period 2014-2020.
Suspension of payments : the possibility for reducing or suspending payments in case of significant and persistent deficiencies in national control systems should be reinforced in order to provide the Commission with the possibility to suspend payments rapidly when serious deficiencies are detected. Such possibility should also be extended by including negligence in the system for recovery of irregular payments.
As regards the EAGF, sums recovered should be paid back to that Fund where the expenditure is not in conformity with Union legislation and no entitlement existed. Member States should request recovery from the beneficiary within 18 months after a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place, has been approved.
Penalties : in cases of infringement of the sectoral agricultural legislation, where detailed rules on administrative penalties have not been laid down by Union legislative and non-legislative acts, Member States should impose national penalties which should be effective, dissuasive and proportionate.
The introduction of new payment systems, and related monitoring and penalty systems, should not result in unnecessary additional complicated administrative procedures and red tape.
Transparency : the amended text stipulated that Member States shall ensure annual ex post publication of the beneficiaries of the EAGF and the EAFRD. The publication shall contain: (i) the first name and the surname where the beneficiaries are natural persons; (ii) the full legal name as registered where the beneficiaries are legal persons; (iii) the municipality where the beneficiary resides or is registered; (iv) the amounts of payment corresponding to each measure financed by the EAGF and the EAFRD received; (v) the nature and the description of the measures financed.
Member States shall not publish the name of a beneficiary where the amount of aid received in one year by a beneficiary is equal or less than EUR 1250.
Beneficiaries should be informed that their data will be made public and informed of their rights under the data protection rules.
Data shall not be stored in a form which permits identification of data subjects for longer than is necessary for the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed.
Ministers held two policy debates within the framework of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform. The discussions focused on:
the proposal for a Regulation establishing rules for direct payments to farmers (Direct Payments Regulation) ; the proposal for a Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP (Horizontal Regulation).
The specific issues examined concerned the basic payment scheme and transparency on CAP payment beneficiaries.
Transparency on CAP beneficiaries: it should be recalled that in its judgment of November 2010, the Court of Justice declared invalid, taking into account the right to privacy and to the protection of personal data enshrined in the EU’s Charter for Fundamental Rights, certain aspects of EU legislation requiring the publication of information on the beneficiaries of CAP funds.
On 25 September 2012, the Commission presented an amendment to its proposal in regard to the publication of data and payments received by beneficiaries (natural and legal persons), the objective of which was to take into account the Court’s ruling. This proposal introduced a new objective in respect of the publication requirement – the need for public control of the use of European agricultural funds.
At the Council session of 22 October 2012, while the majority of Member States supported the Commission’s amended proposal, some delegations called on the Council’s Legal Service to prepare an opinion on this proposal. In these circumstances, the Presidency drew up another document clarifying the Council’s position on this issue.
With regard to the amendments on the publication of beneficiaries' names proposed by the Commission, the President concluded that the Council accepted the objectives and considered that the means proposed by the Commission to achieve that objective are appropriate and proportionate . However,
some Member States still argued that the de minimis threshold was not necessary and should be abandoned for the sake of transparency: in their view, all beneficiaries of CAP payments should be listed; some others expressed concerns about the details given on the beneficiaries, fearing that the process might interfere with data on their private lives; lastly, some delegations believed that further consideration of this issue was needed in order to assess, whether the same objective could not be attained in a less intrusive way.
The Commission briefed the Council on an amendment to a proposal for a Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (CAP) or "Horizontal Regulation" in CAP reform package.
With regard to the amendments on the publication of the names of beneficiaries , some Member States pointed out that the de minimis threshold was not necessary for the sake of transparency; in their view, all beneficiaries of CAP payments should be listed.
Some others expressed concerns about the details given on the beneficiaries, fearing that this process might interfere with data on private life. They questioned whether the proposal complied with the Court of Justice ruling. An opinion of the Council Legal Service was requested by some delegations.
In addition to provisions concerning cross-compliance for Croatia with a view to its accession, the new proposal on the horizontal regulation includes other amendments regarding new rules on the publication of information on all beneficiaries of the EU agricultural funds . This takes account of the objections by the Court of Justice to the former rules to the extent that they were applicable to natural persons. The new rules will differ from the ones declared invalid by the Court in the said Joined Cases in so far as they:
are based on a revised detailed justification, centred around the need for public control of the use of European agricultural funds in order to protect the Union's financial interests; require more detailed information to be given on the nature and description of the measures for which the funds are disbursed; include a de minimis threshold below which the name of the beneficiary will not be published.
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.
Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).
On 25 September 2012, the Commission adopted the Amendment to the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. The Amendment to the Commission proposal was sent to the EDPS for consultation. It adds a new chapter on transparency.
The EDPS welcomes the Commission’s effort in striking a balance between the principle of transparency and the beneficiaries' rights to privacy and personal data protection. However, he recommends the following:
applying the exemption from publication for beneficiaries below the threshold only to natural persons; a better justification as to why other less intrusive measures would not fulfil the purpose of transparency and why other ways of publication have been considered less appropriate; including an additional provision to ensure that in case of small communities only aggregated data are published; justifying in the Preamble the duration chosen for the publication of the data; complement the information to be provided to data subjects.
PURPOSE: to amend the Commission proposal for a regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.
BACKGROUND : 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 . A similar adjustment exercise is prepared for the CAP reform proposals to ensure that once they are adopted, Croatia will be fully covered as a new Member State.
On 19 October 2011, the Commission adopted its proposal for a regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.
In its judgment of 9 November 2010 in Joined Cases C-92/09 and 93/09 (Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert/Land Hessen), the Court of Justice declared invalid point (8b) of Article 42 and Article 44a of Regulation (EC) No1290/2005 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as, with regard to natural persons benefiting from the European agricultural funds, those provisions impose an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof.
According to recital (70) of that proposal, the adoption of new rules on the publication of information on beneficiaries of the European agricultural funds which take account of the judgment of the Court of Justice should be preceded by an in depth analysis and assessment by the Commission in order to find the most appropriate way to reconcile the right to protection of personal data of the beneficiaries with the need for transparency. Having carried out the analysis and assessment, the Commission is now ready to propose new provisions on the matter.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission organized, in September 2011, a consultation of stakeholders gathering representatives of professional agricultural or trade organisations, representatives of the food industry and workers, as well as of the civil society and EU institutions. In that framework different options were put forward in relation to the publication of data of natural persons benefiting from EU agricultural funds and respect for the principle of proportionality while making public the relevant information. The stakeholders’ conference showed that publication of the name of the natural persons is required in order to respond to the objective of better protection of the Union's financial interests, to enhance transparency and to highlight the achievements of beneficiaries in providing public goods while ensuring that it does not go beyond what is necessary for achieving these legitimate aims.
CONTENT: the adjustment will take the form of an amendment to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, in order to include in the proposal:
1) The provisions related to cross-compliance which are already in the Accession Treaty for Croatia. The main changes relate to the inclusion of provisions on:
· the date of application of the penalties in Croatia;
· maintenance of permanent grassland.
2) New rules on the publication of information on all beneficiaries of the European agricultural funds which take account of the objections formulated by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 against the former rules to the extent that they were applicable to natural persons. The new rules will differ from the ones declared invalid by the Court in the Joined Cases in so far as they:
· are based on a revised detailed justification, centred around the need for public control of the use of European agricultural funds in order to protect the Union's financial interests;
· require more detailed information to be given on the nature and description of the measures for which the funds are disbursed;
· include a de minimis threshold below which the name of the beneficiary will not be published.
BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the amendment has no budgetary implications, apart from those already set out in the explanatory memorandum for the updated proposals for the Multiannual Financial Framework.
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.
As regards the horizontal regulation : the Presidency has noted almost unanimous support to delete the delegated power conferred on the Commission to include the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) in the scope of crosscompliance. Instead, the Presidency has suggested inviting the Commission to present a legislative proposal with a view to including the relevant parts of that Directive once it has been implemented.
A number of delegations have opposed the future inclusion of the Pesticides Directive 2009/128/EC in the scope of the cross-compliance by means of delegated acts and have taken the view that this should be contained in the basic act, and if not possible the Commission should submit a new legislative proposal to this effect. In the light of the views expressed by a broad majority of delegations, the classification of the Commission powers as delegated or implementing has been amended by the Presidency, except as regards administrative penalties.
Other issues include:
most delegations support the reintroduction of the current set-up of paying agencies by the Presidency thus providing for the possibility of having more than one paying agency per Member State/per region and allowing paying agencies to specialise in certain support schemes; on recoveries , the moment the recovery procedure starts has been clarified in the Presidency text and the deadline by which Member States must request recovery from the beneficiary concerned has been extended as requested by a very large majority of delegations. The Presidency has reinstated the current 50/50 rule according to which Member States are charged for 50 % of amounts not recovered four years after the date when the debt was recognised, or eight years if the recovery process is being pursued in the courts, since the Commission proposal to charge Member States for 100% of such amounts was met by almost unanimous opposition by delegations; many delegations have expressed concerns about the possible administrative burdens arising from the common monitoring and evaluation framework of the common agricultural policy. It has therefore been specified in the Presidency text that, to the extent possible, the information to be provided by the Member States shall be based on established sources of data. It has further been specified that it is the Commission’s responsibility in accordance with the Horizontal Regulation to monitor direct payments, market measures and the application of cross compliance based on the reporting by Member States. Finally, many delegations support the suggestion that the rules on the information to be sent by the Member States shall take into account the need to avoid any undue administrative burden; as regards the farm advisory system , a majority of delegations support the Presidency suggested amendments that limit the extension of the compulsory requirements to cross compliance requirements (SMR and GAEC), greening practices, and the maintenance of the agricultural area; as regards the integrated administration and control system , a large majority of delegations oppose the Commission proposal that the computerised database should contain data starting from 2000. Many delegations support the suggestion that only data relating to the previous ten years needs to be stored. A transition period has been provided in the Presidency text for Member States to comply with the 1:10.000 scale cartography requirements for the identification system for agricultural parcels; many delegations support the Presidency text providing the possibility of paying advance payments even prior to 16 October, subject to an authorisation by the Commission, and the possibility to make advances after all checks relating to those applications for which the advances are made have been carried out; the rate of the pre-financing of rural development programmes and the possible maintenance of a safety margin triggering the financial discipline are included in the Negotiating Box for Heading 2 of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF); concerning administrative penalties relating to the greening payments most delegations raised concerns and requested the Commission to reconsider the scope and the level of sanctions applicable should the greening objectives not be met. Most delegations find that the administrative penalties concerning the greening payment should not go beyond the greening payment. Furthermore, some aspects of the classification of the Commission powers concerning penalties relating to the greening payments will require further fine-tuning; a number of delegations has expressed concerns about flat-rate financial corrections applied by the Commission in cases where calculating the amount of the financial correction on the basis of individual irregular payments or on the basis of an extrapolation of the results of examination of a representative sample of transactions is impossible or not cost-effective. Delegations have taken the view that it should be made clear in the horizontal regulation , rather than in guidelines to be issued by the Commission, that flat-rate corrections shall only be used as a last resort and that the calculation of any correction should be based on an assessment of the risk of losses to the EAFG and the EAFRD. However, the Presidency has decided to postpone possible redrafting to a later date, with a view to reflecting possible developments in this area in the context of the ongoing negotiations on the draft financial regulation; concerning the deadline for transmission of annual accounts of the EAFRD and EAGF and new terminology compared to the Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 a number of delegations prefer that the deadline be postponed until 1 March and have expressed misgivings about the new scope of the obligations of the person in charge of the accredited paying agency; a number of delegations has taken the view that Pillar II area based support should be exempt from cross-compliance ; most delegations have raised serious concerns as regards the possible increase in administrative burden and costs related to the new tasks for the certification bodies proposed by the Commission concerning certifying the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions and the respect of the principle of sound financial management. Most delegations remain unconvinced of the possible advantages (a reduction of on-the-spot-controls and more targeted calculation of the financial corrections) to compensate for the additional administrative burden. Possible amendments should also be seen in the light of the financial regulation; lastly, most delegations take the view that Member States should be able to keep 20 % of the sums recovered following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence and the 25 % of the amounts resulting from the application of reductions and exclusions for breach of cross-compliance requirements, rather than 10% as proposed by the Commission.
Ministers held an orientation debate on the greening of the common agricultural policy (CAP) within the framework of the CAP reform. The debate covered provisions contained in three of the main proposals of the CAP reform package:
· Regulation for direct payments to farmers;
· Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP (the "horizontal" regulation) ;
· Regulation for rural development .
While broadly supporting the principle of greening the CAP for the period 2014-2020 under the pillar I, delegations nonetheless made clear that, in order to achieve this ambition, an adjustment of the modalities proposed by the Commission was required.
Most delegations stressed that any additional greening measures had to be consistent with their specific objective circumstances be easy to apply and monitor, with the implementation costs remaining proportional and avoiding unnecessary red tape. A more flexible approach would help to take into account the diversity of agricultures in the EU and would avoid a "one size fits all" approach.
Many Member States considered that the scope of farming practices that are " green by definition " had to be widened to include pillar II agri-environment practices, as well as practices under national or regional environmental certification schemes. The Commission expressed openness to consider an adjustment of its proposal to take this into account.
On the three mandatory greening measures , a number of adjustments were suggested by delegations:
on crop diversification : most delegations considered that there was a need to increase the minimum threshold , the minimal number of crops requested and to adjust the definition of crop. Moreover land predominantly covered by permanent grassland needed to be taken into account. on the retention of permanent grassland , and to maintain the management of these areas at regional or national level instead of farm level as proposed by the Commission, on the Ecological focus area (EFA) and the 7% requirement : most delegations wanted more flexibility and suggested a minimum farm area threshold; , areas under pillar II agrienvironment schemes with high benefits for the environment and climate needed to be taken into account.
Instead of the three mandatory greening measures as proposed by the Commission (crop diversification, permanent grassland and EFAs), some delegations would prefer a "menu" approach where member states could choose from a list of measures.
Other Member States would prefer to build greening upon existing instruments, especially cross compliance in pillar I and agrienvironment schemes in pillar II.
Lastly, a large majority of delegations estimated that the level of sanctions applicable when the greening objectives are not met should not go beyond the level of the greening payment and therefore should not affect the basic payment itself.
Timetable :
The Council already held policy debates on the proposals for regulation on direct payments, rural development and on the single common market organisation during the three last Agriculture Council meetings in November and December last year and in January this year. In March 2012, Ministers held a debate on the simplification of the CAP. During its last meeting in April 2012, the Council held an orientation debate on young farmers, small farmers, voluntary coupled support and top ups for farmers in areas with natural constraints, as well as on internal distribution, active farmer and capping of support to large farms.
In June, the Danish Presidency intends to organise an orientation debate on the proposal on rural development and to present a progress report on the CAP reform.
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.
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 .
PURPOSE: to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 (horizontal Regulation).
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: Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
CONTENT: in the light of the importance of future challenges for food security, the environment and territorial balance, the CAP remains a policy of strategic importance to ensure the most effective response to the policy challenges and the most efficient use of budgetary resources.
The main elements of the proposal are as follows:
It is proposed to maintain the current structure of instruments in two pillars where Member States have more leeway to tailor solutions to their local specificities and also co-finance Pillar II.
The new European Innovation Partnership and risk management toolkit are also placed within Pillar II. At the same time the policy will be better aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy (including a common framework with other EU funds) and a number of improvements and simplification elements introduced.
In addition to financing provisions, the horizontal regulation brings together relevant rules for all instruments , such as provisions on cross compliance, checks and penalties. As a result, the regulation now lays down rules on financing, the farm advisory system, management and control systems, cross compliance and clearance of accounts.
Cross compliance : the current rules were reviewed with a view to simplification, strengthening the climate change dimension within GAEC and ensuring consistency with the provisions of greening and of relevant environmental measures offered under rural development.
Paying agencies : the proposal foresees reducing the number of paying agencies and reinforcing the role of the coordinating body. This will render the system more transparent and less burdensome for both national administrations and the Commission services. There will be fewer accreditations and declarations of assurance required at Member State level and the number of Commission audits can be reduced.
Management and controls : the rules on management and controls will be aligned, as far as possible, for the two pillars of the CAP so as to bring legal clarity and harmonised procedures. Moreover, the regulation foresees empowering the Commission to allow for a reduction of the number of on-the-spot checks for Member States with properly functioning control systems and low error rates.
Lastly, the regulation provides the basis for a common monitoring and evaluation framework to measure the performance of the CAP during the next period.
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.
PURPOSE: to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013 (horizontal Regulation).
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: Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
CONTENT: in the light of the importance of future challenges for food security, the environment and territorial balance, the CAP remains a policy of strategic importance to ensure the most effective response to the policy challenges and the most efficient use of budgetary resources.
The main elements of the proposal are as follows:
It is proposed to maintain the current structure of instruments in two pillars where Member States have more leeway to tailor solutions to their local specificities and also co-finance Pillar II.
The new European Innovation Partnership and risk management toolkit are also placed within Pillar II. At the same time the policy will be better aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy (including a common framework with other EU funds) and a number of improvements and simplification elements introduced.
In addition to financing provisions, the horizontal regulation brings together relevant rules for all instruments , such as provisions on cross compliance, checks and penalties. As a result, the regulation now lays down rules on financing, the farm advisory system, management and control systems, cross compliance and clearance of accounts.
Cross compliance : the current rules were reviewed with a view to simplification, strengthening the climate change dimension within GAEC and ensuring consistency with the provisions of greening and of relevant environmental measures offered under rural development.
Paying agencies : the proposal foresees reducing the number of paying agencies and reinforcing the role of the coordinating body. This will render the system more transparent and less burdensome for both national administrations and the Commission services. There will be fewer accreditations and declarations of assurance required at Member State level and the number of Commission audits can be reduced.
Management and controls : the rules on management and controls will be aligned, as far as possible, for the two pillars of the CAP so as to bring legal clarity and harmonised procedures. Moreover, the regulation foresees empowering the Commission to allow for a reduction of the number of on-the-spot checks for Member States with properly functioning control systems and low error rates.
Lastly, the regulation provides the basis for a common monitoring and evaluation framework to measure the performance of the CAP during the next period.
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.
Documents
- Follow-up document: COM(2021)0822
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2021)0399
- Follow-up document: COM(2021)0815
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2021)0387
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2021)0385
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2021)0980
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2021)0115
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2021)0116
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2020)0232
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2020)0233
- Follow-up document: COM(2019)0634
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2019)0438
- Contribution: COM(2018)0790
- Follow-up document: COM(2018)0790
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: COM(2017)0777
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2017)0459
- Follow-up document: COM(2017)0745
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: COM(2016)0083
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: SWD(2016)0037
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2014)87
- Final act published in Official Journal: Regulation 2013/1306
- Final act published in Official Journal: OJ L 347 20.12.2013, p. 0549
- Final act published in Official Journal: Corrigendum to final act 32013R1306R(01)
- Final act published in Official Journal: OJ L 130 19.05.2016, p. 0006
- Final act published in Official Journal: Corrigendum to final act 32013R1306R(03)
- Final act published in Official Journal: OJ L 327 09.12.2017, p. 0083
- Draft final act: 00094/2013/LEX
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading: T7-0490/2013
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading: A7-0363/2013
- Debate in Council: 3257
- Debate in Council: 3253
- Debate in Council: 3249
- Debate in Council: 3232
- Debate in Council: 3225
- Debate in Council: 3212
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE501.971
- Contribution: COM(2012)0551
- Contribution: COM(2012)0551
- Debate in Council: 3193
- Committee opinion: PE491.202
- Committee opinion: PE494.608
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE497.977
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE498.000
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE497.774
- Document attached to the procedure: N7-0060/2013
- Document attached to the procedure: OJ C 100 06.04.2013, p. 0010
- Supplementary legislative basic document: COM(2012)0551
- Supplementary legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Committee opinion: PE489.355
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE492.777
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE494.482
- Committee opinion: PE485.889
- Debate in Council: 3176
- Committee draft report: PE483.834
- Debate in Council: 3165
- Committee of the Regions: opinion: CDR0065/2012
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Document attached to the procedure: N7-0044/2012
- Document attached to the procedure: OJ C 035 09.02.2012, p. 0001
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Debate in Council: 3120
- Legislative proposal: COM(2011)0628
- Legislative proposal: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2011)1153
- Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2011)1154
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Legislative proposal published: COM(2011)0628
- Legislative proposal published: EUR-Lex
- Legislative proposal: COM(2011)0628 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex SEC(2011)1153
- Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2011)1154 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: N7-0044/2012 OJ C 035 09.02.2012, p. 0001
- Committee of the Regions: opinion: CDR0065/2012
- Committee draft report: PE483.834
- Committee opinion: PE485.889
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE492.777
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE494.482
- Committee opinion: PE489.355
- Supplementary legislative basic document: COM(2012)0551 EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: N7-0060/2013 OJ C 100 06.04.2013, p. 0010
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE497.774
- Committee opinion: PE491.202
- Committee opinion: PE494.608
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE497.977
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE498.000
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE501.971
- Draft final act: 00094/2013/LEX
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2014)87
- Follow-up document: COM(2016)0083 EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2016)0037
- Follow-up document: COM(2017)0745 EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: COM(2017)0777 EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2017)0459
- Follow-up document: COM(2018)0790 EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: COM(2019)0634 EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2019)0438
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2020)0232
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2020)0233
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2021)0115
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2021)0116
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2021)0385
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2021)0980
- Follow-up document: COM(2021)0815 EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2021)0387
- Follow-up document: COM(2021)0822 EUR-Lex
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex SWD(2021)0399
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2012)0551
- Contribution: COM(2012)0551
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2011)0628
- Contribution: COM(2018)0790
Votes
A7-0363/2013 - Giovanni La Via - Am 1 #
A7-0363/2013 - Giovanni La Via - Résolution législative #
Amendments | Dossier |
841 |
2011/0288(COD)
2012/06/04
DEVE
5 amendments...
Amendment 4 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 51 (51) The cross compliance system incorporates in the CAP basic standards for the environment, climate change, good agricultural and environmental condition of land, public health, animal health, plant health and animal welfare. This link aims at contributing to the development of a sustainable agriculture through a better awareness of beneficiaries of the need to respect those basic standards. It aims also at contributing to make the CAP more compatible with the expectation of the society through a better consistency of that policy with the environment, public health, animal health, plant health and animal welfare policies. The CAP should "do no harm": the statutory management requirements ("SMRs") already represent the legal minimum of environmental quality in all relevant laws in the aquis: meaningful cross-compliance plus compulsory greening should be a "baseline for sustainability", a contract with society to assure citizens that public money is spent on public goods rather than creating extra costs in cleaning up environmental pollution, solving public health crises, the costs of reduced fertility and productivity, etc. A CAP that does not degrade its own and other resource bases therefore represents budgetary efficiency.
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a (a) viable food production, with a focus on
Amendment 6 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca) impact on developing countries of price subsidies for exports, tariffs and trade barriers, as part of a "do no harm" CAP.
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 a (new) Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 a (new) source: PE-489.686
2012/07/11
CONT
54 amendments...
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a) Cutting red tape is one of the key objectives and main requirements of the CAP reform. By introducing realistic tolerance thresholds and de minimis limitations and striking a balance between trust and scrutiny, the future administrative burden on Member States and beneficiaries must be kept to a reasonable level. As part of this process of cutting red tape, due account must be taken of the administrative and other costs of checks at all levels and effective administrative and monitoring systems must be rewarded. The overriding objective must be to reduce administrative costs and to return the administrative burden on farmers and administrators to a reasonable level.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) In order to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of this Regulation, the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the accreditation of the paying agencies and coordinating bodies, the
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) The increasing demands made on certification bodies and paying agencies must not go hand in hand with a further increase in red tape in the Member States and, above all, those demands should be no more stringent than international auditing standards. As regards the scope and content of the certification process, a balanced cost-benefit ratio must be maintained and additional reporting requirements must bring a clear added value.
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 (36) The recovery procedures used by the Member States may have the effect of delaying recovery for a number of years, with no guarantee that the outcome will actually be successful. The cost of implementing those procedures may also be out of proportion to the amounts which are or may be collected. This should also apply to the recovery of amounts unduly paid and interest which fall below a ceiling which is set very low. Here as well, a realistic cost-effectiveness ratio must be maintained. Consequently, Member States should be permitted to halt recovery procedures in certain cases.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 55 Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 (57) The cross compliance system implies certain administrative constraints for both beneficiaries and national administrations since record keeping must be ensured, checks must be carried out and penalties have to be applied where necessary. Those penalties should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. Such penalties should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under other provisions of Union or national law. For the sake of consistency, it is appropriate to merge the relevant Union provisions into one single legal instrument.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 68 (68) Each measure under the CAP should be subject to monitoring and evaluation in order to improve its quality and demonstrate its achievements. In this context a list of indicators with baseline and target levels should be determined and the impact of the CAP policy assessed by the Commission in relation to policy objectives. The Commission should set up a framework for a common monitoring and evaluation ensuring among others that relevant data, including information from Member States is available on a timely manner. In so doing it should take into account the data needs and synergies between potential data sources. Moreover, the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Budget for
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 68 (68) Each measure under the CAP should be subject to monitoring and evaluation in order to improve its quality and demonstrate its achievements. In this context a list of indicators should be determined and the impact of the CAP policy assessed by the Commission in relation to policy objectives. The Commission should set up a framework for a common monitoring and evaluation ensuring among others that relevant data, including information from Member States is available on a timely manner. In so doing it should take into account the data needs and synergies between potential data sources and draw as far as possible on existing data sources. In addition, the monitoring and evaluation framework must take account of and properly reflect the structure of the CAP. The monitoring and evaluation framework for the second pillar cannot be applied to the first pillar, in particular because under the first pillar there is scope for generating synergies, given the comparably uniform nature of the measures. Proper account should be taken of this. Moreover, the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Budget for Europe 2020 - Part II stated that the
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b (b) a management declaration of assurance as to the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts, the proper functioning of the internal control systems as well as to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point c (c) a summary of: (i) the results of all available audits
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new) The management declaration shall also include an analysis of systematic or recurrent weaknesses as well as corrective actions taken or planned.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new) (ba) rules on the scope and work underlying the management declaration of the paying agencies;
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion, drawn up in accordance with internationally accepted audit standards, following risk-based controls and taking into account the past performance of the Member State, on the management declaration of assurance covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts of the paying agency, the proper functioning of
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion on the management declaration of assurance covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts of the paying agency, the proper functioning of its internal control system, the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new) The opinions of the certification bodies will be made public in an appropriate way.
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economical activity of
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Whe
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 When sectoral agricultural legislation requires Member States to submit, within a specific period of time, information on the numbers of checks carried out and their outcome and the Member States overrun that period, the Commission may suspend the monthly payments referred to in Article 18 or the interim payments referred to in Article 35 for which the relevant statistical information has not been sent in time, provided that the Commission has made all the information, forms and explanations they need to compile the relevant statistics available to the Member States in good time prior to the start of the reference period.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca) whether a paying agency complies with the accreditation criteria laid down in Article 7(2) and whether the Member State correctly applies the provisions of Article 7(5).
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c b (new) (cb) the work which the certification bodies are required to carry under Article 9.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c c (new) (cc) compliance with the obligations laid down in Article 56(1)
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 The Commission shall give sufficient prior notice of an on-the-spot check to the Member State concerned or the Member State within whose territory the check is to take place and shall coordinate checks with a view to reducing any negative impact on paying agencies. Agents from the Member State concerned may take part in such checks.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 2 2. The Commission shall assess the amounts to be excluded on the basis of the gravity of the non-conformity recorded. It
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. The Commission shall base its financial corrections on individual cases of irregularity identified, or by taking account of the systemic nature of the irregularity to determine whether an extrapolated or flat rate correction should be applied. Flat rate corrections shall only be applied where it is impossible, due to the nature of the case, to either identify the extent and amount of the irregularity found or to extrapolate the amount to be corrected.
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 2 2. The Commission shall assess the amounts to be excluded on the basis of the gravity of the non-conformity recorded. It shall take due account of the nature and
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 Before the adoption of any decision to refuse financing, the findings from the Commission's inspection and the Member State's replies shall be notified in writing, following which the two parties shall attempt to reach agreement on the action to be taken. In this context the Member States shall be given the opportunity to demonstrate, through an examination of the documentation concerned, that the actual extent of irregularity is less than the Commission's assessment.
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 If agreement is not reached, the Member State may request the opening of a procedure aimed at reconciling each party's position within four months. A report of the outcome of the procedure shall be given to the Commission, which shall
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point b (b) national aids
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a (a) if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 59 In order to ensure correct and efficient application of the provisions relating to
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 1 1. The system set up by the Member States in accordance with Article 60(2) shall include, except where otherwise provided, systematic administrative checking of a
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 2 2. As regards the on-the-spot checks, the authority responsible shall draw its check sample from the entire population of applicants comprising, where appropriate, a random part and a risk-based part in order to obtain a representative error rate, while targeting also
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b – subpoint i (new) (i) if the financial impact of the errors (error rate) detected during the random on-the-spot checks was less than 2% in each of the two previous years, the Member States concerned may reduce the number of on-the-spot checks by up to 50%.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b – subpoint ii (new) (ii) if the financial impact of the errors (error rate) detected during the random on-the-spot checks was more than 5% in each of the two previous years, the Member States concerned shall increase the number of on-the-spot checks by up to 50%.
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b – subpoint iii (new) (iii) if the financial impact of the errors (error rate) detected during the random on-the-spot checks was less than 1% in each of the two previous years, the Member States concerned may reduce the number of on-the-spot checks to 25% of the normal rate.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 3 (3) The amounts concerned by the withdrawal referred to in paragraph 1 and by the penalties referred to in paragraph 2 shall be recovered in full, without prejudice to Article 56(3).
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 3 a (new) (3a) By derogation from paragraph 1, in the case of direct payments and multiannual area and animal-related rural development measures, a Member State may decide to dispense with the filing of annual payment applications, providing it introduces effective alternative procedures for implementing the proposed administrative controls and there are no changes compared to the original payment application.
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 77 – paragraph 2 – point b (b) provisions required for a harmonised definition of the basis for calculation of aid
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 92 – paragraph 1 Article 91 shall apply to beneficiaries receiving direct payments under Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP]
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 92 – paragraph 2 Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 92 – paragraph 2 However, Article 91 shall not apply to
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 93 – paragraph 3 Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 93 – paragraph 4 Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 99 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 In the case of non compliance due to negligence, the percentage of reduction shall
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 99 – paragraph 3 3. In the case of intentional non- compliance, the percentage of reduction shall in principle not be less than 2
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 A common monitoring and evaluation framework shall be established with a view to measuring the performance of the common agricultural policy. It shall include all instruments related to the monitoring and evaluation of common agricultural policy measures and in particular of the direct payments provided for in Regulation (EU) No DP/xxx, the
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 The Commission shall define, by means of implementing acts, the set of indicators and target levels specific to the objectives referred to in the first subparagraph and require Member States to identify baseline and target levels for these indicators. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 112(3).
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 110 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 The Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, rules on the information to be sent by the Member States, as well as on the data needs and synergies between potential data sources. These implementing acts must not lead to any further increase in the administrative burden on Member States and the beneficiaries. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 112(3).
source: PE-492.904
2012/07/20
AGRI
667 amendments...
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a) In accordance with Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), objectives of development cooperation, including those approved in the context of the United Nations and other international organisations, should be taken into account under the CAP. Measures taken under this regulation should not jeopardize the food production capacity and long term food security of developing countries, in particular least developed countries (LDCs), and contribute to achieving the Union's commitments on mitigating climate change.
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a) The implementation of this regulation should be consistent with the development cooperation objectives of the Union's Policy Framework for Food Security (COM (2010) 127) with specific regards to ensure that the deployment of CAP measures do not jeopardize the food production capacity and long term food security developing countries and the ability of those populations to feed themselves, while complying with the obligation of Policy Coherence for Development under Article 208 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a) Cutting red tape is one of the key objectives and main requirements of the CAP reform. By introducing realistic tolerance threshholds and de minimis limitations and striking a balance between trust and scrutiny, the future administrative burden on Member States and beneficiaries must be kept to a reasonable level. As part of this process of cutting red tape, due account must be taken of the administrative and other costs of checks at all levels and effective administrative and monitoring systems must be rewarded. The overriding objective must be to reduce administrative costs and to return the administrative burden on farmers and administrators to a reasonable level.
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) In order to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of this Regulation, the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the accreditation of the paying agencies and coordinating bodies, the content of the Farm Advisory System, the measures to be financed by Union budget under public intervention and the valuation of the operations in connection with public intervention, the reductions and suspension of the reimbursements to the Member States, the compensation between expenditure and revenues under the Funds, the recovery of debts, the penalties applied to beneficiaries in case of non-compliance with the eligibility conditions, in respect of rules on securities, on the functioning of the integrated administration and control system, of the measures excluded from the scrutiny of transactions, the penalties applied under cross compliance, the rules on maintenance of permanent
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6) The Union budget should finance CAP expenditure, including that on rural development, through both Funds either directly or in the context of shared management with the Member States. The types of measures that can be financed using those Funds should be specified. Retrospective changes to the terms of any measure should be avoided.
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) Where a Member State accredits more than one paying agency, it is important that it designates a
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) Only paying agencies accredited by the Member States offer reasonable assurance that the necessary checks have been carried out before granting Union aid to beneficiaries. It should therefore be explicitly laid down that only expenditure effected by accredited paying agencies can be reimbursed from the Union budget, and that these checks shall be carried out on the basis of single integrated sample.
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) Only paying agencies accredited by the Member States offer reasonable assurance that the necessary checks have been carried out before granting Union aid to beneficiaries. It should therefore be explicitly laid down that only
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) The increasing demands made on certification bodies and paying agencies must not go hand in hand with a further increase in red tape in the Member States and, above all, those demands should be no more stringent than international auditing standards. As regards the scope and content of the certification process, a balanced cost-benefit ratio must be maintained and additional reporting requirements must bring clear value added.
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) In order to help beneficiaries to become more aware of the relationship between agricultural practices
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) The farm advisory system should cover at least the requirements and standards forming the scope of cross compliance. That system should also cover the requirements to be respected in relation to the agricultural practices beneficial for
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) The farm advisory system should cover at least the requirements and standards forming the scope of cross compliance. That system should also cover the requirements to be respected in relation to the agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment for direct payments, as well as the maintenance of the agricultural area under Regulation (EU) No DP/xxx of the European Parliament and of the Council of xxx establishing rules for
Amendment 115 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) The farm advisory system should cover at least the requirements and standards forming the scope of cross compliance. That system should also cover the requirements to be respected in relation to the agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment for direct payments, as well as the maintenance of the agricultural area under Regulation (EU) No DP/xxx of the European Parliament and of the Council of xxx establishing rules for direct payment to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy14.
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) The farm advisory system should cover at least the requirements and standards forming the scope of cross compliance. That system should also cover the requirements to be respected in relation to the agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment for direct payments, as well as the maintenance of the agricultural area under Regulation (EU) No DP/xxx of the European Parliament and of the Council of xxx establishing rules for direct payment to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy14. That system should finally cover certain elements related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, protection of water, animal and plant disease notification and innovation as well as the sustainable development of the economic
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 (14) The use of the agro-meteorological
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) With a view to ensuring that the amounts for the financing of the CAP comply with the annual ceilings, the financial mechanism referred to in Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/200316 whereby the level of direct support is adjusted when the forecasts indicate that the subceiling of heading 2, with a safety margin of EUR 300 000 000, is exceeded in a given financial year, should be maintained. In the same context, it is necessary to authorise the Commission to set those adjustments where the Council do not fix them before 30 June of the calendar year in respect of which they apply.
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 19 (19) Budget discipline also demands a continuous examination of the medium- term budget situation. The Commission, when submitting the draft budget for a given year, should therefore present its forecasts and analyses to the European Parliament and the Council and propose, if necessary, appropriate measures to the legislator. Furthermore, the Commission should make full use of its management powers at all times to ensure compliance with the annual ceiling and, if necessary, propose appropriate measures to the European Parliament and to the Council or to the Council to redress the budget situation. If, at the end of a budget year, the annual ceiling cannot be complied with as a result of the reimbursements requested by the Member States, the Commission should be able to take measures allowing provisional distribution of the available budget, taking into account a margin of EUR 300 000 000 below that ceiling, among the Member States in proportion to their requests for reimbursement not yet paid, as well as compliance with the ceiling fixed for the year concerned. Payments for that year should be charged to the following budget year and the total amount of Union financing per Member State should be definitively established, as should compensation between Member States in order to comply with the established amount.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 20 (20) When implementing the budget, the Commission should operate a monthly early-warning and monitoring system for agricultural expenditure, so that, if there is a risk of the annual ceiling being exceeded, the Commission may at the earliest opportunity take the appropriate measures under the management powers at its disposal and propose other measures if those measures appear to be insufficient, taking into account the margin laid down in Recital (19). A periodic report by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council should compare the evolution of the expenditure effected in relation to the profiles so far and give an assessment of the foreseeable implementation for the remainder of the budget year.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 (23) The rural development programmes are financed from the Union budget on the basis of commitments in annual instalments. Member States should be able to draw on the Union funds provided for as soon as they begin the programmes. Member States may indicate to the Commission within two months of this decision that it does not wish to receive a pre-financing amount. A suitably restricted prefinancing system ensuring a steady flow of funds so that payments to beneficiaries under the programmes are made at the appropriate time is therefore needed.
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 (23) The rural development programmes are financed from the Union budget on the basis of commitments in annual instalments. Member States should be able to draw on the Union funds provided for as soon as they begin the programmes should they so wish. A suitably restricted prefinancing system ensuring a steady flow of funds so that payments to beneficiaries under the
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25 (25) Union aid should be paid to beneficiaries in good time so that they may use it efficiently. A failure by the Member States to comply with the payment deadlines laid down in Union legislation could create serious difficulties for the beneficiaries and could jeopardise the Union's yearly budgeting. Therefore, expenditure made without respecting deadlines for payments should be excluded from Union financing. In order to respect the principle of proportionality, the Commission should be able to provide for exceptions to this general rule. This principle, laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 should be maintained and apply to both the EAGF and the EAFRD.
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25 (25) Union aid should be paid to beneficiaries in good time so that they may use it efficiently. A failure by the Member States to comply with the payment deadlines laid down in Union legislation could create serious difficulties for the beneficiaries and could jeopardise the Union's yearly budgeting. Therefore, expenditure made without respecting deadlines for payments should be excluded from Union financing. In order to respect the principle of proportionality, the Commission should be able to provide for exceptions to this general rule. This principle, laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 should be maintained and apply to both the EAGF and the EAFRD. If Member States pay late, they should add interests on the principal amount at their own cost to compensate the beneficiaries. Such a provision could create an incentive to Member States to better respect payment deadlines, and could give more assurance to beneficiaries to be paid in time, or at least to be compensated in case of late payment. The implementation of the qualifying projects under the EAFRD and efficiency in funding would be facilitated by establishing maximum coherence in interpreting regulations governing qualification for funds.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 (27) Sectoral agricultural legislation requires Member States to send information on the numbers of checks carried out and their outcome within specified deadlines. Those control statistics are used to determine the level of error at Member State level and, more generally, for the purposes of checking the management of the EAGF and the EAFRD. They are an important source for the Commission to satisfy itself as to the correct management of funds and are an essential element for the annual declaration of assurance. Given the vital nature of this statistical information and in order to ensure that Member States respect their obligation to send it in time, it is necessary to provide a proportionate deterrent to late provision of the data required in a manner proportionate to the extent of the data deficit. Therefore, provisions should be put in place whereby the Commission can suspend part of the monthly or interim payments for which the relevant statistical information has not been sent in time only where the delay places the annual budget discharge mechanism at risk, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 (27) Sectoral agricultural legislation requires Member States to send information on the numbers of checks
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 (30) The financing of measures and operations under the CAP will in part involve shared management. To ensure that Union funds are soundly managed, the Commission should perform the necessary checks on the management of the Funds by the Member State authorities responsible for making payments. It is appropriate to define the general rules and principles to be followed by the Commission when carrying out checks, and the nature of the checks to be made by the Commission, to specify the terms of its responsibilities for implementing the budget and to clarify the Member States'
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 (31) In order to allow the Commission to fulfil its obligation to check the existence and proper functioning of management and inspection systems for Union expenditure in the Member States, provision should be made,
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34 (34) The Commission, which is responsible for the proper application of Union law under Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, should decide whether the expenditure incurred by the Member States
Amendment 130 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 (36) The recovery procedures used by the Member States may have the effect of delaying recovery for a number of years, with no guarantee that the outcome will actually be successful. The cost of implementing those procedures may also be out of proportion to the amounts which are or may be collected. This should also apply to the recovery of amounts unduly paid and interest which fall below a ceiling which is set very low. Here as well, a realistic cost-effectiveness ratio must be maintained. Consequently, Member States should be permitted to halt recovery procedures in certain cases.
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 37 (37) In order to protect the financial interests of the Union budget, measures should be taken by Member States to satisfy themselves that transactions financed by the EAGF and the EAFRD are actually carried out and are executed correctly. Member States should also prevent, detect and deal effectively with any irregularities or non-compliance with obligations committed by beneficiaries. To this end, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests22 should apply. In order to ensure coherence in the EU's policy priorities and objectives, the scope of what is considered as risky to the financial interests of the Union budget should also include risks to the environment and public health, as the costs associated with these are externalised to other areas of public, including EU, spending. Minimising additional costs in other areas should ensure efficiency in public spending.
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 (38) Provisions relating to general principles on checks, withdrawals, reductions or exclusions from payments and to the imposition of penalties are contained in various sectoral agricultural regulations. Those rules should be gathered in the same legal framework at a horizontal level. They should cover the obligations of the Member States as regards administrative and on-the-spot checks, the rules on the recovery, reduction and exclusions of aid. Rules on checks of obligations not necessarily linked to the payment of an aid should be laid down as well. In order to provide coherent and clear signals to farmers, it is important that eligibility rules, communicated to farmers or applied by inspectors when determining eligible areas, should be interpreted so as to ensure that high nature farming systems are not penalised, and to ensure that environmental quality or biodiversity in farming systems does not decrease as a result of eligibility checks.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 (38) Provisions relating to general
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 (38) Provisions relating to general principles on checks, withdrawals, reductions or exclusions from payments and to the imposition of penalties are contained in various sectoral agricultural regulations. Those rules should be gathered in the same legal framework at a horizontal level. They should cover the obligations of the Member States as regards administrative and on-the-spot checks, the rules on the recovery, reduction and exclusions of aid. Rules on the reductions to checks where error rates are acceptable and checks of obligations not necessarily linked to the payment of an aid should be laid down as well.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 a (new) (38a) This Regulation should provide a strong incentive for Member States to reduce the number of on-the-spot checks where the error rate is at an acceptable level. This particularly applies to the provisions on the integrated administration and control system.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 a (new) (38a) A fair system to penalise farmers for irregularities should rule out double penalties and the simultaneous application of administrative penalties under this Regulation and criminal penalties under criminal law, except in cases of intentional and deliberate fraud.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 b (new) (38b) Any administrative penalties, including the obligation to pay back any payments obtained by the farmer, should not be based on circumstances objectively beyond the farmer’s control, and particularly not on unforeseeable events.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 41 (41) The main elements of that integrated system and, in particular, the provisions concerning a computerised database, an identification system for agricultural parcels, aid applications or payment claims and a system for the identification and recording of payment entitlements should be maintained. Member States may make appropriate use of technology when setting up these systems.
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 41 (41) The main elements of that integrated system and, in particular, the provisions concerning a computerised database, an
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 41 (41) The main elements of that integrated system and, in particular, the provisions concerning a computerised database, an identification system for agricultural parcels, aid applications or payment claims and a system for the identification and recording of payment entitlements should be maintained at an appropriate level, while taking due account of the necessity not to impose undue administrative burdens on farmers and administrative bodies.
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 41 a (new) (41a) It should be possible for the Member States to decide to make aid or payment applications valid over several years, particularly in relation to farmers using permanent or traditional methods of agricultural production.
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 42 (42) Payments provided for in Union support schemes covered by the integrated system should be made
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 50 (50) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 51 (51) The cross compliance system incorporates in the CAP basic standards for
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 52 (52) The cross compliance system forms an integral part of the CAP and should therefore be maintained. However, its scope, which consists so far in separate lists of statutory management requirements and standards of good agricultural and environmental condition of land should be streamlined so that its consistency is ensured and made more visible, without reducing environmental quality. For this purpose the requirements and standards should be organised in a single list and grouped by areas and issues. Experience has also shown that a number of the requirements within the scope of cross compliance are not sufficiently relevant to farming activity or the area of the holding or concern national authorities rather than beneficiaries. It is therefore appropriate to adjust this scope in this respect. Provision should furthermore be made for the maintenance of permanent
Amendment 146 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 53 (53) Statutory management requirements need to be fully implemented by Member States in order to become operational at farm level and ensure the necessary equal treatment between farmers. The Commission should issue guidelines on the interpretation of the rules on animal identification and registration for cross compliance purposes. Such guidelines should reflect, particularly in the case of electronic systems, that 100% accuracy is often not possible and therefore some tolerance should be built into guidelines. Guidelines should, where appropriate, such as in the case with electronic systems, provide for flexibility at farm level in order to strike the necessary balance between safeguarding the spirit of the legislation and applying proportionate administrative penalties only in the case of non-compliance directly and unequivocally attributable to the beneficiaries, in particular in respect of repeated failure of the technology in use.
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 (54) As regards Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy28 the provisions
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 (54) As regards Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy28 the provisions will
Amendment 152 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 54 (54) As regards Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy the provisions will only be operational under cross compliance when all Member States will have fully implemented them in particular with clear obligations for farmers. According to the Directive the requirements at farm level will be applied at the latest by 1 January 201
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 55 Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 55 Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 55 (55) As regards Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides29 the provisions
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 55 (55) As regards Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 56 Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 (57) The cross compliance system implies certain administrative constraints for both beneficiaries and national administrations since record keeping must be ensured, checks must be carried out and penalties have to be applied where necessary. Those penalties should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. Such penalties should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under other provisions of Union or national law. For the sake of consistency, it is appropriate to merge the relevant Union provisions into one single legal instrument.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 (57) The cross compliance system implies certain administrative constraints for both beneficiaries and national administrations since record keeping must be ensured, checks must be carried out and penalties have to be applied where necessary. Those penalties should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. Such penalties should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under other provisions of Union or national law. For the sake of consistency, it is appropriate to merge the relevant Union provisions into one single legal instrument.
Amendment 160 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 (57) The cross compliance system implies certain administrative constraints for both beneficiaries and national administrations since record keeping must be ensured, checks must be carried out and penalties have to be applied where necessary. Those penalties should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. Such penalties should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under other provisions of Union or national law. For the sake of consistency, it is appropriate to merge the relevant Union provisions into one single legal instrument.
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 (57) The cross compliance system implies certain administrative constraints for both beneficiaries and national administrations since record keeping must be ensured, checks must be carried out and penalties have to be applied where necessary. Those penalties should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. Such penalties should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under other provisions of Union or national law. For the sake of consistency, it is appropriate to merge the relevant Union provisions into one single legal instrument.
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 (57) The cross compliance system implies certain administrative constraints for both beneficiaries and national administrations since record keeping must be ensured, checks must be carried out and penalties have to be applied where necessary. Those penalties should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. Such penalties should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under other provisions of Union or national law. For the sake of consistency, it is appropriate to merge the relevant Union provisions into one single legal instrument.
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 (57) The cross compliance system implies certain administrative constraints for both beneficiaries and national administrations since record keeping must be ensured, checks must be carried out and penalties have to be applied where necessary. Those penalties should be proportionate, risk- based, effective and dissuasive. Such penalties should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under other provisions of Union or national law. For the sake of consistency, it is appropriate to merge the relevant Union provisions into one single legal instrument. For farmers participating in the small farmers scheme referred to in Title V of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP], the efforts to be made under the cross compliance system may be considered as exceeding the benefit of keeping those farmers under that system. For reasons of simplification, those farmers should therefore be exempted from the cross compliance
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 (57) The cross compliance system implies certain administrative constraints for both beneficiaries and national administrations since record keeping must be ensured, checks must be carried out and penalties have to be applied where necessary. Those penalties should be proportionate, effective and dissuasive. Such penalties should be without prejudice to other penalties laid down under other provisions of Union or national law. For the sake of consistency, it is appropriate to merge the relevant Union provisions into one single legal instrument. For farmers participating in the small farmers scheme referred to in Title V of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP], the efforts to be made under the cross compliance system may be considered as exceeding the benefit of keeping those farmers under that system. For reasons of simplification, those farmers should therefore be exempted from cross compliance and in particular from its control system and from the risk of cross compliance penalties. However, that exemption should be without prejudice to the obligation to respect the applicable provisions of the sectoral legislation and to the possibility to be checked and to be imposed penalties under that legislation. Minor unintentional infringements associated with cross compliance inspections should not incur a penalty and instead a warning should be issued and compliance monitored at a future inspection.
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 a (new) (57a) Member States should be required to report annually on the implementation and results of cross compliance and greening measures to the European Commission, who should submit an annual report to the European Parliament on the effectiveness of Member State measures to address long term sustainability challenges in food production systems.
Amendment 166 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 a (new) (57a) Member States should be required to report annually about the implementation and results of the cross compliance and the greening measures. On the basis of the national reporting the European Commission shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament regarding the effect of these measures on agricultural production and their environmental impact in the Member States.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 60 (60) An effective implementation of cross compliance requires verification at beneficiaries' level that obligations are respected. Where a Member State decides to make use of the option not to apply a reduction or exclusion where the amount concerned is less than EUR 100, the competent control authority should, for a sample of beneficiaries in the following year, verify that the findings of the non- compliance concerned have been remedied. Member States may also set up an early- warning system applicable to non-severe first non-compliances to achieve a better acceptance of the cross compliance system by farming communities and better involve farmers in the implementation of the requirements. This should take the form of a warning letter which shall be followed by remedial action by the beneficiary concerned and checked by the Member State in the following year.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 65 (65) The rate of exchange of the euro into national currency may vary in the course of the period during which an operation is carried out. Therefore the rate applicable to the amounts concerned should be determined taking into account the event through which the economic objective of the operation is achieved. The rate of
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 65 a (new) (65a) By way of derogation Member States may convert the amount of aid expressed in Euro into the national currency on the basis of the average of a maximum of the five most recent exchange rates set by the Member States' national central bank [ or the European Central Bank ] prior to 1 October for the year for which aid is granted.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 68 (68) Each measure under the CAP should be subject to monitoring and evaluation in order to improve its quality and demonstrate its achievements. In this context a list of indicators should be determined and the impact of the CAP policy assessed by the Commission in relation to policy objectives. The Commission should set up a framework for a common monitoring and evaluation ensuring among others that relevant data, including information from Member States is available on a timely manner. In so doing it should take into account the data needs and synergies between potential data sources and draw as far as possible on existing data sources. In addition, the monitoring and evaluation framework must take account of and properly reflect the structure of the CAP. The monitoring and evaluation framework for the second pillar cannot be applied to the first pillar, in particular because under the first pillar there is scope for generating synergies, given the comparably uniform nature of the measures. Proper account should be taken of this. Moreover, the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Budget for Europe 2020 - Part II stated that the climate related expenditure in the overall Union budget should increase to at least 20%, with contribution from different policies. The Commission should therefore be able to assess the impact of the Union's support in the framework of the CAP to climate objectives.
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 68 a (new) (68a) In accordance with the principle of policy coherence for development, the implementation of a so-called do no harm CAP should be subject to regular monitoring and assessment as regards its impact on food production capacity and long term food security of developing countries, in particular of Less Developed Countries.
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 70 (70) In its judgment in Joined Cases C- 92/09 and 93/0934 the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the relevant provisions in Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 concerning the obligation of Member States to publish information on natural persons benefiting from the European agricultural funds invalid. Since it is in the interest of natural persons that their personal data are protected, and with a view to reconciling the different objectives underlying the obligation to publish information on the beneficiaries of
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new) "Advanced sustainable farming systems" are farming systems with practices going beyond the cross compliance baseline and continuously progressing to improve management of nutrients, water cycles and energy flows, in order to reduce environmental damage and waste of non- renewable resources and maintain a high degree of crop, animal and natural diversity in the production system
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 b (new) "Unsustainable farming systems" means farming and animal breeding practices which have an intrinsic risk of non- compliance with - or systematically seriously breach - cross compliance rules in the areas of environment and of public, animal and plant health, due to insufficient nutrient management and consequent water pollution, stocking densities being too high for the hectares available, high dependence on external energy, water, biocide and nutrient inputs.
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 c (new) "High Nature Value farming" means farming systems that host farming activities and farmland that, because of their characteristics, can be expected to support high levels of biodiversity or species and habitats of conservation concern. These systems are characterised by low intensity farming and high proportions of natural or semi-natural vegetation. It may also be characterised by a high diversity of land cover.
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 d (new) 'non chemical methods' means alternative methods to pesticide and plant protection and pest management based on agronomic techniques such as those referred to in point 1 of annex III of Directive 2009/128/EC or physical, mechanical or biological pest control methods
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f (f) expropriation of a
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. "sectoral agricultural legislation" means any applicable acts adopted on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty within the framework of the common agricultural policy as well as, where applicable, any delegated or implementing acts adopted on the basis of those acts;
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part The EAGF and the EAFRD may each respectively finance
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part The EAGF and the EAFRD may each respectively finance
Amendment 182 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Paying agencies shall be dedicated departments or bodies of the Member States responsible for the joint management and control of all expenditure referred to in both Article 4(1) and Article 5.
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Paying agencies shall be
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Paying agencies shall be
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 Each Member State shall, taking into account its constitutional provisions, restrict the number of its accredited paying agencies to
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b (b) a management declaration of assurance as to the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts, the proper functioning of the internal control systems, on the basis of measurable performance criteria, as well as to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b (b) a management declaration of assurance as to the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts, the proper
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b (b) a management declaration of assurance as to the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the accounts, the proper functioning of the internal control systems as well as to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part Where, on account of a Member State’s constitutional system, more than one paying agency is accredited, the Member State shall designate a body, hereinafter referred to as the "coordinating body", to which it assigns the following tasks:
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c (c) to
Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c (c)
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point d (d) to promote
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 - introductory phrase Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 196 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca) the obligations of the paying agencies as regards public intervention, as well as on the content of their management and control responsibilities.
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new) (cb) the functioning of the coordinating body and the notification of information to the Commission as referred to in Article 7(4).
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion on the management declaration of assurance covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts of the paying agency, the proper functioning of its internal control system
Amendment 201 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion, drawn up in accordance with internationally accepted audit standards, on the management declaration of assurance covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts of the paying agency, the proper functioning of its internal control system, the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, as well as the respect of the principle of sound financial management.
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated only by the Member State which shall provide an opinion, in keeping with internationally recognised auditing standards, on the management declaration of assurance covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts of the paying agency, the proper functioning of its internal control system, the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, as well as the respect of the principle of sound financial management. This opinion must state whether the claims made in the context of the declaration of assurance issued pursuant to Article 7(3)(b) have been challenged.
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion on the management declaration of
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion on the management declaration of assurance covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts of the paying agency, the proper functioning of its internal control system
Amendment 206 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion on the management declaration of assurance covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts of the paying agency
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The certification body shall be a public or private audit body designated by the Member State which shall provide an opinion on the management declaration of assurance covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts of the paying agency, the proper functioning of its internal control system, the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. In order to respect the principles of proportionality and administrative burden reduction, the certification body shall: (a) integrate samples as much as possible and maximize the efficiency of transaction testing, including on the spot checks; and (b) select the smallest numbers of populations and transactions necessary for testing to provide the level of assurance required.
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules concerning the status of the certification bodies, the specific tasks, including the checks, which they have to carry out on a single integrated sample as well as the certificates and the reports, together with the documents accompanying them, to be drawn up by those bodies. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 112(3).
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 2. The Commission shall
Amendment 211 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 2. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules concerning the status of the certification bodies, the specific tasks, including the checks, which they have to carry out on a single integrated sample as well as the certificates and the reports, together with the documents accompanying them, to be drawn up by those bodies. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 112(3).
Amendment 212 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new) (2a) The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules concerning the certificates and reports to be drawn up by the certification bodies, together with the documents accompanying them. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 112(3).
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 1. Member States shall establish a system of advising beneficiaries on land, farm, and farm risk management (hereinafter referred to as the ‘farm advisory system’) operated by one or more designated bodies that should be accredited on the basis of minimum qualifications laid down by the Commission by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 111. The designated bodies may be public or private.
Amendment 214 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a (a) obligations at farm level deriving from the statutory management requirements and the standards for good agricultural and environmental condition of land as laid down in Chapter I of Title VI;
Amendment 215 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point b Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new) (ba) information on the activities of the operational groups in the framework of the European Innovation Partnership network with a special focus on the agricultural practices targeted towards innovation
Amendment 217 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c Amendment 218 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c Amendment 220 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c Amendment 221 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c Amendment 222 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c Amendment 223 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c (c) as a minimum, the requirements or actions related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, protection of water and efficient nutrient cycling, soil health, animal and plant disease
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new) (ca) The agri-environment-climate measures as laid down in article 29 of Regulation xxx/xxx [RD]
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new) (ca) the agri-environment-climate measures laid down in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxxx [RD];
Amendment 226 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new) (ca) The agri- environment- climate measures as laid down in article 29 of regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx [RD]
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new) (cb) the environmental performance and the sustainable development of the economic activity of organic farming as a minimum referred to in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007;
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c b (new) (cb) advice on integrated pest management and use of non chemical alternatives
Amendment 229 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 234 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 238 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d (d) the environmental performance and sustainable development of the economic
Amendment 239 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d (d) the environmental performance and the sustainable development of the economical activity of the small farms as defined by the Member States and at least of the farms participating in the small farmers scheme referred to in Title V of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP].
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new) (da) the promotion and implementation of principles relating to accounting, entrepreneurship and the sustainable management of economic resources.
Amendment 241 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new) (da) the environmental performance and the sustainable development of the economic activity of organic farming, to at least the standards referred to in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new) (da) the environmental performance and sustainable development of economic activity of organic farming as a minimum referred to in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new) (da) the environmental performance and the sustainable development of economic activity of organic farming as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.
Amendment 244 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 — point d a (new) da. The agri- environment climate measures a laid down in article 29 of regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx [RD]
Amendment 245 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new) (da) the options available to farmers for effective management of economic and environmental risks.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economic
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economical activity of
Amendment 248 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economical activity of
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economic
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economic
Amendment 251 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economical activity of holdings
Amendment 252 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economical activity of holdings
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the environmental performance and the sustainable development of the economical activity, of holdings other than those referred to in paragraph (2)(d);
Amendment 254 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economic
Amendment 255 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the sustainable development of the economical activity of holdings
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) the environmental performance and the sustainable development of
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a a (new) (aa) the promotion of farm conversions and the diversification of their economic activity, especially into tourism and the creation of woodland and agro-forestry systems;
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point a b (new) (ab) risk management and the introduction of appropriate preventive actions to address natural disasters, catastrophic events and animal and plant diseases;
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the minimum requirements or actions in the field of climate change mitigation and adaption, biodiversity, protection of water, animal and plant disease notification and innovation, as laid down in Annex 1 to this regulation
Amendment 260 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the requirements or actions related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, protection of water, animal and plant disease notification and innovation at minimum as laid down in Annex I to this Regulation;
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the minimum requirements or actions in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, protection of water, animal and plant disease notification, and innovation, as laid down in Annex I to this Regulation.
Amendment 262 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the requirements or actions related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, protection of water, animal and plant disease notification as laid down in Annex I to this Regulation and those linked to green growth as defined in the rural development regulation new Art.18bis in line with the measures proposed in the rural development programmes
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the minimum requirements or actions in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, protection of water, animal and plant disease notification, and innovation, as laid down in Annex I to this Regulation.
Amendment 264 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the requirements or actions related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, protection of water, animal and plant disease notification and innovation as a minimum requirement, as laid down in Annex I to this Regulation.
Amendment 265 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the requirements or actions related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, protection of water, animal and plant disease notification and innovation at minimum as laid down in Annex I to this Regulation;
Amendment 266 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new) (bb) the sustainable development of the economical activity of the small farms as defined by the Member States and at least of the farms participating in the small farmers scheme referred to in Title V of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP].
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the sustainable development of the economic activity of small farms, as defined by the Member States, and at least of the farms participating in the small farmers scheme referred to in Title V of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP].
Amendment 268 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new) (bb) the sustainable development of the economical activity of the small farms as defined by the Member States and at least of the farms participating in the small farmers scheme referred to in Title V of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP].
Amendment 269 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new) (bb) the sustainable development of the economical activity of the small farms as defined by the Member States and at least of the farms participating in the small farmers scheme referred to in Title V of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP].
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the sustainable development of the economic activity of the small farms, as defined by the Member States, participating in the small farmers scheme referred to in Title V of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx[DP].
Amendment 271 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) the agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment as laid down in Chapter 2 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx [DP] and the maintenance of the agricultural area as referred to in Article 4(1) (c) of Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx [DP]
Amendment 272 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure the separation between advice and control. In this respect and without prejudice to national legislation concerning public access to documents, Member States shall ensure that the designated bodies referred
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure the separation between advice and control. In this respect and without prejudice to national legislation concerning public access to documents, Member States shall ensure that the designated bodies referred to in Article 12 do not disclose personal or individual information and data they obtain in their advisory activity to persons other than the beneficiary managing the holding concerned, with the exception of a support provider, the control authorities of the advisory system and cases of any irregularity or infringement found during their activity which is covered by an obligation laid down in Union or national law to inform a public authority, in particular in the case of criminal offences.
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2 However Member States may determine, in accordance with objective criteria, the categories of beneficiaries that have priority access to the farm advisory system. Member States shall nevertheless ensure that priority is given to farmers whose access to an advisory service other than the farm advisory system is most limited. Priority shall also be given to networks operating with limited resources which may constitute operational groups within the meaning of Article 62 of Regulation (EU) No XXXXXX (on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)) and which, in so far as they are involved in innovation, may participate in the European Innovation Partnership on agricultural productivity and sustainability referred to in Articles 53 and 61 of Regulation (EU) No XXXXXX (on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)).
Amendment 275 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2 However Member States may determine, in accordance with objective criteria, the
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2 However Member States may determine,
Amendment 277 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2 However Member States may determine, in accordance with objective criteria, the categories of beneficiaries that have priority access to the farm advisory system
Amendment 278 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 Amendment 279 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 Amendment 280 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 1. In order to guarantee the proper functioning of the farm advisory system, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 111 concerning provisions aiming at rendering that system fully operational. Those provisions may relate, amongst others, to the accessibility criteria for farmers, as well as to minimum qualification criteria for Farm Advisory System designated bodies.
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 2 Amendment 282 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 2 2. In the event that the Union legislation provides for sums to be reduced from the amount referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall be empowered, by means of
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new) However, personnel expenditure incurred by Member States and beneficiaries of aid from the EAGF shall not be borne by the Fund.
Amendment 285 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 2 The Commission
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 3 The Commission and/or Member States shall remain the owner of the images
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 The measures financed pursuant to point (c) of Article 6 shall aim to give the Commission the means to manage Union agricultural markets in a global context, to ensure agri-economic and agro-ecological monitoring of agricultural and forest land and of the condition of the agricultural resource base and crops, so as to enable estimates to be made
Amendment 288 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 2 The measures financed pursuant to point (c) of Article 6 concern the collection or purchase of data needed to implement and monitor the common agricultural policy, including satellite data and meteorological data, the creation of a spatial data infrastructure and a website, the carrying out of specific studies on climatic conditions, monitoring of soil health and functionality e.g. LUCAS - Land Use/Cover Area frame Statistical Survey, and the updating of agri-
Amendment 289 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 1 1. With a view to ensuring that the annual ceilings set out in the Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx [MFF] for the financing of the market related expenditure and direct payments are respected, an adjustment rate of the direct payments shall be determined when the forecasts for the financing of the measures financed under that subceiling for a given financial year indicate that the applicable annual ceilings, taking into account a margin of EUR 300 000 000 below that ceiling, will be exceeded.
Amendment 290 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 6 Amendment 292 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 6 Amendment 293 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 6 Amendment 294 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 6 6. Before
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 2 2. If, on drawing up the draft budget for financial year N, there appears to be a risk that the amount referred to in Article 16 for financial year N will be exceeded, taking account of the margin laid down in Article 25 (1) of this Regulation, the Commission shall propose to the European Parliament and the Council or to the Council the measures necessary to ensure compliance with that amount.
Amendment 296 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3 3. At any time, if the Commission considers that there is a risk of the amount referred to in Article 16 being exceeded and that it cannot take adequate measures to remedy the situation under its powers, it shall propose other measures to ensure compliance with that amount. These measures shall be adopted by the
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 Amendment 298 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 Without prejudice to the eligibility for support under Chapter 2 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No DP/2012 and Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU) No RD/xxx, expenditure financed under the EAFRD shall not be subject of any other financing under the EU budget.
Amendment 299 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 Amendment 300 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 Without prejudice to the eligibility for support under Article 29 and 30(2) of Regulation (EU) No RD/xxx, expenditure financed under the EAFRD shall not be subject of any other financing under the EU budget.
Amendment 301 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 Without prejudice to the eligibility for support under Articles 29(2) and 30(2) of Regulation (EU) No RD/xxx, expenditure financed
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent
Amendment 303 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 (1) Following the
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent
Amendment 305 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent
Amendment 306 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent
Amendment 307 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent
Amendment 308 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission, unless the Member State notifies the Commission within two months of the decision that it does not wish to receive a pre-financing amount. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent 4% of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. It may be split into a maximum of three instalments depending on budget availability. The first instalment shall represent 2% of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned.
Amendment 309 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission, unless the Member State concerned notifies the Commission within 2 months of the decision that it does not wish to receive a pre-financing amount. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent 4% of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. It may be split into a maximum of three instalments depending on budget availability. The first instalment shall represent 2% of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned.
Amendment 310 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent 4% of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. It may be split into a maximum of three instalments depending on budget availability.
Amendment 311 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 1. Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Member States may decide not to avail of prefinancing arrangements as outlined in this article.
Amendment 313 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 1 1. Interim payments shall be made for each rural development programme. They shall be calculated by applying the co-financing rate for each measure to the incurred public expenditure pertaining to it or to the total eligible expenditure, including public and private expenditure.
Amendment 314 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 3 – point a (a) transmission to the Commission of a monthly declaration of expenditure signed by the accredited paying agency, in accordance with Article 102(1)(c);
Amendment 315 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 1. The Commission shall automatically decommit any portion of a Member State’s budget commitment
Amendment 316 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Member States which, on account of their federal/regional system of government, submit several rural development programmes, may offset amounts not used by 31 December of the second year following that of the budget commitment for one or more rural development programmes against amounts spent after that date under other rural development programmes. Should any amounts remain to be decommitted after such offsetting, they shall be charged, on a proportional basis, to the rural development programmes in respect of which underspends have been recorded.
Amendment 317 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Member States which submit several rural development programmes may offset amounts not used by 31 December of the second year following that of the budget commitment for one or more rural development programmes against amounts spent after that date under other rural development programmes. Should any amounts remain to be decommitted after such offsetting, they shall be charged, on a proportional basis, to the rural development programmes in which there has been underspending.
Amendment 318 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Member States which submit several rural development programmes may offset amounts not used by 31 December of the second year following that of the budget commitment for one or more rural development programmes against amounts spent after that date under other rural development programmes. Should any amounts remain to be decommitted after such offsetting, they shall be charged, on a proportional basis, to the rural development programmes in which there has been underspending.
Amendment 319 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new) (ba) that part of the budget commitments which concerns aid pursuant to Article 37(1), points (b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No XXXXXX (on support for rural development).
Amendment 320 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 a (new) Article 37a The Commission shall automatically decommit any portion of a budget commitment for a rural development programme that has not been used for the purpose of prefinancing or making interim payments or for which no declaration of expenditure fulfilling the requirements laid down in Article 35(3) has been presented to it in relation to expenditure incurred by 31 December of the second year following that of the budget commitment. However, decommitment shall not apply to the 2014 budget commitment. For the purpose of the decommitment, one sixth of the 2014 commitment will be added to each of the 2015 to 2020 budget commitments.
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 Amendment 324 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 In order to make the financial impact proportional to the payment delay observed, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 111 concerning rules on the reduction of payments in relation to the non-respect of the payment period. This paragraph shall not apply in cases where the payment delay is beyond the control of the Member State.
Amendment 327 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 Amendment 328 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 Amendment 329 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 Amendment 330 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 Amendment 331 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 Amendment 332 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 Amendment 333 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 Amendment 334 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 2. Where the latest possible date of payment is not respected by the Member States, they shall pay the beneficiaries default interests
Amendment 335 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 2. Where the latest possible date of payment is not respected by the Member States, they shall pay the beneficiaries default interests
Amendment 336 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 2. Where the latest possible date of payment is not respected by the Member States, they shall pay the beneficiaries default interests, supported from the national budget. This paragraph shall not apply in cases where the payment delay is not the fault of the Member State.
Amendment 337 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 — subparagraph 1 a (new) (1a) The Commission shall establish by means of implementing acts those cases of force majeure and exceptional cases in which beneficiaries do not have to be paid default interest if aid has been paid later than the payment date provided for in the EU legislation.
Amendment 338 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 43 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a (a) one or more of the key components of the
Amendment 339 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 341 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 342 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 343 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 345 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 346 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 347 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 348 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 Amendment 349 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1 When sectoral agricultural legislation requires Member States to submit, within a specific period of time, information on the numbers of checks carried out pursuant to Article 61 and their outcome and the Member States overrun that period, the Commission may suspend, in accordance with the principle of proportionality and the detailed rules adopted on the basis of Article 48(5), and taking due account of the length of the delay, the monthly payments referred to in Article 18 or the interim payments referred to in Article 35 for which the relevant statistical information has not been sent in time, except in cases of force majeure or in exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 350 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1 Whe
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1 When sectoral agricultural legislation requires Member States to submit, within a specific period of time, information on the numbers of checks carried out and their outcome and the Member States overrun that period, the Commission may suspend the monthly payments referred to in Article 18 or the interim payments referred to in Article 35 for which the relevant statistical information has not been sent in time, provided that all the Regulations and instructions for this information are ready and available when the databases are set up by Member States.
Amendment 352 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1 When sectoral agricultural legislation requires Member States to submit, within a specific period of time, information on the numbers of checks carried out and their outcome and the Member States overrun that period, the Commission may suspend the monthly payments referred to in Article 18 or the interim payments referred to in Article 35 for which the relevant statistical information has not been sent in time, provided that the Commission has made all the information, forms and explanations they need to compile the relevant statistics available to the Member States in good time prior to the start of the reference period.
Amendment 353 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1 When sectoral agricultural legislation requires Member States to submit, within a specific period of time, information on the numbers of checks carried out and their outcome and the Member States overrun that period, the Commission may suspend the monthly payments referred to in Article 18 or the interim payments referred to in Article 35 for which the relevant statistical information has not been sent in time except in cases of force majeure or in exceptional circumstances, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Amendment 354 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 1 When sectoral agricultural legislation requires Member States to submit, within a specific period of time, information on the numbers of checks carried out and their outcome and the Member States overrun that period, the Commission may suspend the monthly payments referred to in Article 18 or the interim payments referred to in Article 35 for which the relevant statistical information has not been sent in time, but not before the Member State has been notified in writing that this penalty may be imposed.
Amendment 355 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 5 Amendment 356 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 6 Amendment 357 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point a Amendment 358 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b Amendment 359 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point c Amendment 360 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point c Amendment 361 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 48 – paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 111 to specify: (a) rules on the financing and accounting of intervention measures in the form of public storage, and other expenditure financed by the EAGF and the EAFRD; (b) the terms and conditions governing the implementation of the automatic decommitment procedure.
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 The Commission shall give sufficient prior notice of an on-the-spot check to the Member State concerned or the Member State within whose territory the check is to take place and shall coordinate checks with a view to reducing the impact on paying agencies. Agents from the Member State concerned may take part in such checks.
Amendment 363 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new) The Commission shall reduce the frequency of on-the-spot checks in Member States where the opinion of the Certification Body as regards the legality and regularly of the underlying transactions indicates that the error rate is at an acceptable level
Amendment 364 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 a (new) The Commission shall reduce the frequency of on-the-spot checks in Member States where the opinion of the Certification Body as regards the legality and regularly of the underlying transactions indicates that the error rate is at an acceptable level.
Amendment 365 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 50 – paragraph 3 3. Member States shall make available to the Commission all information about irregularities
Amendment 366 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 The accredited paying agencies shall keep supporting documents relating to payments made and documents relating to the performance of the administrative and physical checks required by Union legislation, and shall make the documents and information available to the Commission. Such supporting documents may be kept in electronic form.
Amendment 367 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 The accredited paying agencies shall keep supporting documents relating to payments made and documents relating to the performance of the administrative and physical checks required by Union legislation, and shall make the documents and information available to the Commission. Such supporting documents may be kept and sent in electronic form.
Amendment 368 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 1 – introductory part The Commission
Amendment 369 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca) the conditions under which the supporting documents referred to in Article 51 shall be kept, including their form and the time period of their storage.
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 52 – paragraph 2 Amendment 371 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 2 2. The Commission shall assess the amounts to be excluded on the basis of the gravity of the non-conformity recorded. It shall take due account of the nature and gravity of the infringement and
Amendment 372 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 2 2. The Commission shall assess the amounts to be excluded on the basis of the gravity of the non-conformity recorded. It shall take due account of the nature
Amendment 373 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 2 2. The Commission shall assess the amounts to be excluded on the basis of the gravity of the non-conformity recorded. It shall take due account of the nature and gravity of the infringement and of the financial damage caused to the Union. In no event shall the amounts excluded exceed the risk to the Agricultural Funds are expressed in the opinion of the Certification Body on the legality and regularity of underlying transactions.
Amendment 374 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. The Commission shall base its financial corrections on individual cases of irregularity identified, or by taking account of the systemic nature of the irregularity to determine whether an extrapolated or flat rate correction should be applied. Flat rate corrections shall only be applied where it is impossible, due to the nature of the case, to either identify the extent and amount of the irregularity found or to extrapolate the amount to be corrected
Amendment 375 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. The Commission shall base its financial corrections on individual cases of irregularity identified, or by taking account of the systemic nature of the irregularity to determine whether an extrapolated or flat rate correction should be applied. Flat rate corrections shall only be applied where it is impossible, due to the nature of the case, to either identify the extent and amount of the irregularity found or to extrapolate the amount to be corrected.
Amendment 376 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 If agreement is not reached, the Member State may request opening of a procedure aimed at reconciling each party's position within four months. A report of the outcome of the procedure shall be given to the Commission, which shall
Amendment 377 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 If agreement is not reached, the Member State may request opening of a procedure aimed at reconciling each party's position within four months and arriving at a joint opinion. A report of the outcome of the procedure shall be given to the Commission, which shall examine it before deciding on any refusal of financing.
Amendment 378 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 54 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 If agreement is not reached, the Member State may request opening of a procedure aimed at reconciling each party's position within four months. A report of the outcome of the procedure shall be given to the Commission, which shall examine it with a view to accepting its findings before deciding on any refusal of financing.
Amendment 379 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) the conformity clearance provided for in Article 54 with regard to the measures to be taken in connection with the adoption of the decision and its implementation, including the information exchange between the Commission and the Member States
Amendment 380 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within
Amendment 381 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within
Amendment 382 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within
Amendment 383 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within
Amendment 384 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or
Amendment 385 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within
Amendment 386 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or
Amendment 387 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within one year of the first
Amendment 388 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within one year
Amendment 389 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within one year of the
Amendment 390 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 1 1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within
Amendment 391 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne up to a maximum of 50% by the Member State
Amendment 392 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the Union budget, without prejudice to the requirement that
Amendment 393 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned
Amendment 394 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned
Amendment 395 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne up to a maximum of 50% by the Member State
Amendment 396 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50% by the Union budget, without prejudice to the requirement that the Member State concerned must pursue recovery procedures in compliance with Article 60.
Amendment 397 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50% by the Union budget, without prejudice to the requirement that the Member State concerned must pursue recovery procedures in compliance with Article 60.
Amendment 398 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State
Amendment 399 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50% by the Union budget, without prejudice to the requirement that the Member State concerned must pursue recovery procedures in compliance with Article 60.
Amendment 400 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 If recovery has not taken place within four years of the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50% by the Union budget, without prejudice to the requirement that the Member State concerned must pursue recovery procedures in compliance with Article 60.
Amendment 401 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new) However, if, for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time limit specified in the first subparagraph and the amount to be recovered exceeds EUR 1 million, the Commission may, at the request of the Member State, extend the time limit by a maximum of 50% of the original time limit.
Amendment 402 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new) However, if, for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time limit specified in the first subparagraph and the amount to be recovered exceeds EUR 1 million, the Commission may, at the request of the Member State, extend the time limit by a maximum of 50% of the original time limit.
Amendment 403 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new) However, if for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time-limits specified in the first subparagraph, and the amount to be recovered exceeds EUR 1 million, the Commission may at the request of the Member State, extent the time limits by a maximum of 50% of the initial time limits.
Amendment 404 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new) However, if for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time-limits specified in the first subparagraph, and the amount to be recovered exceeds EUR 1 million, the Commission may at the request of the Member State, extent the time limits by a maximum of 50% of the initial time limits.
Amendment 405 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new) However, if for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time limits specified in the first subparagraph, and the amount to be recovered exceeds €1 million, the Commission may, at the request of the Member State, extend the time limits by a maximum of 50% of the initial time limits.
Amendment 406 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new) However, if for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, recovery could not take place within the time limits specified in the first subparagraph, and the amount to be recovered exceeds €1 million, the Commission may, at the request of the Member State, extend the time limits by a maximum of 50% of the initial time limits.
Amendment 407 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 56 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a (a) if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered
Amendment 408 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2 When the Union budget is credited as referred in the first paragraph, the Member State may retain
Amendment 409 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2 When the Union budget is credited as referred in the first paragraph, the Member State may retain
Amendment 410 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2 When the Union budget is credited as referred in the first paragraph, the Member State may retain
Amendment 411 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2 When the Union budget is credited as referred in the first paragraph, the Member State may retain
Amendment 412 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2 When the Union budget is credited as referred in the first paragraph, the Member State may retain
Amendment 413 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 57 – paragraph 2 When the Union budget is credited as referred in the first paragraph, the Member State may retain
Amendment 414 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point b Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point b Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new) (ea) prevent undue environmental and public health costs, especially to avoid funding of activities under the CAP which generate additional costs to other policy areas within the EU budget, especially the environment and public health.
Amendment 417 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. The introduction of new payment systems, which would in turn necessitate the introduction of new greening-related monitoring and penalty systems, must be avoided as this would create a need for additional, complicated administrative procedures and more red tape.
Amendment 418 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 The Commission
Amendment 419 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 420 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 1 1. The system set up by the Member States in accordance with Article 60(2) shall include, except where otherwise provided,
Amendment 421 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. The control system referred to in paragraph 1 should include the possibility of lodging objections against the controls and the period for lodging and examining such objections.
Amendment 422 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 2 2. As regards the on-the-spot checks, the authority responsible shall draw its check sample from the entire population of applicants comprising, where appropriate, a random part and a risk-based part in order to obtain a representative error rate, while targeting
Amendment 423 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 2 2. As regards the on-the-spot checks, the authority responsible shall draw its check sample from the entire population of applicants comprising, where appropriate, a random part and a risk-based part in order to obtain a representative error rate, while targeting also
Amendment 424 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 2 2. As regards the on-the-spot checks, the authority responsible shall draw its check sample from the entire population of applicants comprising, where appropriate, a random part and a risk-based part in order to obtain a representative error rate, while targeting also
Amendment 425 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new) In preparing samples for checks, the responsible authority shall consider the scope of risk to be covering risk to public funds in the EU budget, and shall include risk to the environment, risk to public health and associated costs, as referred to in article 60.
Amendment 426 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 (new) Amendment 427 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Member States may reduce the number of on-the-spot checks where the error rate is at an acceptable level and the management and control systems in place work properly. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 111, laying down the precise conditions and rules that Member States are to apply. In addition, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 111 for the purpose of reducing the level of on-the- spot checks carried out each year to 3% of all farmers submitting aid applications or payment claims.
Amendment 428 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Member States may reduce checks where the error rates are at an acceptable level.
Amendment 429 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 61 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Member States may reduce the level of on-the-spot checks where the error rate is at an acceptable level. The precise applicable conditions and rules shall be determined in delegated acts according to Article 64 of this regulation.
Amendment 430 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 1 Amendment 431 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part Amendment 432 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b (b) the rules on the minimum level of on- the-spot checks, which shall be set at the rate of 1% for schemes covered by a operational IACS or, in other cases, at the minimum rate necessary for an effective management of the risks, as well as the conditions under which Member States have to increase such checks, or may reduce them where the
Amendment 433 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 434 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b Amendment 435 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b – point i (new) (i) if the financial impact of the errors (error rate) detected during the random on-the-spot checks was less than 2% in each of the two previous years, Member States may reduce the number of on-the- spot checks by up to 50%.
Amendment 436 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b – point ii (new) Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b – point iii (new) (iii) if the financial impact of the errors (error rate) detected during the random on-the-spot checks was less than 1% in each of the two previous years, the Member States concerned may reduce the number of on-the-spot checks to 25% of the normal rate.
Amendment 438 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 1 1. Where it is found that a beneficiary does not comply with the eligibility criteria or the commitments relating to the conditions for granting the aid as provided for in the sectoral agricultural legislation the aid shall be withdrawn in full
Amendment 439 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 Amendment 440 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 Where Union law so provides, where relevant, subject to further details laid down in implementing acts, Member States shall also impose penalties by way of reductions or exclusions of the payment or part of the payment granted or to be
Amendment 441 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 442 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 The amount of the reduction of aid shall be graduated according to the severity, extent, duration and reoccurrence of the non compliance found and may go as far as total exclusion from one or several aid schemes or support measures for one or more calendar years. When evaluating the risk to public funds in a proportionate way and calculating reduction of aid due to an applicant breaching the terms of agreement for the granting of that aid, authorities responsible shall ensure that the rate of reduction reflects the real costs to society generated by the breach, taking into account article 60.
Amendment 443 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 The amount of the reduction of aid shall be graduated proportionately to the gravity and nature of the infringement found, according to the severity, extent, duration and reoccurrence of the non compliance found and may go as far as total exclusion from one or several aid schemes or support measures for one or more calendar years.
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new) When assessing the severity of the non- compliance the authorities responsible for applying reductions shall take into account that, due to the nature of pollution events or public health crises, with some types of non-compliance the initial area upon which the breach is found may be small but the consequences can cover much more area or span many years.
Amendment 445 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 3 (3) The amounts concerned by the withdrawal referred to in paragraph 1 and by the penalties referred to in paragraph 2 shall be recovered in full, without prejudice to Article 56, paragraph 3.
Amendment 446 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. The amounts concerned by the withdrawal referred to in paragraph 1a and by the administrative penalties referred to in paragraph 2 shall be graduated proportionately to the gravity and nature of the infringement found, according to the severity, extent, duration and reoccurrence of the non compliance found.
Amendment 447 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Withdrawals and reductions resulting from non-compliance with the obligations referred to in Chapter 2 of Title III of Regulation (EU) No DP/2012 and shall not exceed the amount of the payment referred to in that Chapter. The amounts concerned by the withdrawal referred to in this paragraph shall be made available as Union support under rural development programming financed under the EAFRD as specified in Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR] and shall be granted to farmers or groups of farmers taking up measures fostering sustainable development.
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 a (new) Article 65a Withdrawals and reductions as regards payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment Notwithstanding Article 65, the sum of the withdrawals and reductions applied in accordance with that Article as a result of non-compliance with the obligations referred to in Title III of Chapter 2 of Regulation ... (Direct Payments) may exceed the amount of the payment referred to in that Chapter.
Amendment 449 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 a (new) Article 65a Withdrawals and reductions as regards payment for agricultural payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment. Notwithstanding Article 65, the sum of the withdrawals and reductions applied in accordance with that Article as a result of non-compliance with the obligations referred to in Title III of Chapter 2 of Regulation XXX (DP) shall not exceed the amount of the payment referred to in that chapter.
Amendment 450 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 66 – paragraph 1 — subparagraph 1 – point i a (new) (ia) the procedures and technical criteria related to the measures and penalties referred to in paragraph 1 where non- compliance with any of the obligations resulting from the application of the relevant legislation is found;
Amendment 451 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 66 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a Amendment 452 #
Proposal for a regulation Title V chapter 1a (new) Chapter 1a "Control system and administrative penalties in relation to greening"
Amendment 453 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 67 a (new) Article 67a "Checks in relation to greening" 1. Member States shall make use, where appropriate, of the integrated system laid down in Chapter II of Title V and in particular of elements referred to in Article 69(1) points (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f). 2. Member States shall carry out on-the- spot checks to verify that beneficiaries comply with the obligations laid down in Chapter II of Title III in DPxxx. Depending on the measures within greening, Member States may decide to carry out administrative checks when it can be shown that these are as effective. 3. For the purpose of on-the-spot checks, Member States shall draw up a sampling plan of agricultural holdings and/or beneficiaries, which could be the same as the sample for on-the-spots checks required in Article 75. 4. The on-the-spot checks shall be carried out in a way that verifies compliance with all relevant greening measures on the holding. 5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 111 on the carrying out of checks in order to verify compliance with the obligations referred to in Chapter II of Title III in DPxxx.
Amendment 454 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 67 b (new) Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 67 c (new) Article 67c "Delegated powers" 1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 111 laying down detailed rules concerning the establishment of a harmonised basis for calculation of the administrative penalties referred to in Article 67b, taking into account reductions due to financial discipline and the calculation and application of penalties referred to in Article 67b.
Amendment 456 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Member States may make appropriate use of technology when setting up their 'integrated system'.
Amendment 457 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 68 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Member States shall make appropriate use of technology when setting up their integrated system.
Amendment 458 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 69 – paragraph 1 – point f (f) a
Amendment 459 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 69 – paragraph 1 – point f (f) a
Amendment 460 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 69 – paragraph 2 Amendment 461 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 This database shall in particular allow consultation through the competent authority of the Member State, of the data relating to the calendar and/or marketing years, starting from 20
Amendment 462 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 This database shall in particular allow consultation through the competent authority of the Member State, of the data relating to the calendar and/or marketing years, starting from 2000. However, the Member States which acceded to the EU in 2004 can ensure consultation of the data only from 2004. It shall also allow direct and immediate consultation of the data relating to at least the previous five consecutive calendar years.
Amendment 463 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 2 2. Member States may set up decentralised databases on condition that these, and the administrative procedures for recording and accessing data, are designed
Amendment 464 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 70 – paragraph 2 2. Member States may set up decentralised databases on condition that these, and the administrative procedures for recording and accessing data, are designed
Amendment 465 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 1 The identification system for agricultural parcels shall be established on the basis of maps or land registry documents or other cartographic references. Use shall be made of computerised geographical information system techniques, including aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with a homogenous standard guaranteeing accuracy at least equivalent to cartography at a scale of 1:
Amendment 466 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 1 The identification system for agricultural parcels shall be established on the basis of maps or land registry documents or other cartographic references. Use shall be made of computerised geographical information system techniques, including aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with a homogenous standard guaranteeing accuracy at least equivalent to cartography at a scale of 1:
Amendment 467 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 1 The identification system for agricultural parcels shall be established on the basis of maps or land registry documents or other cartographic references. Use shall be made of computerised geographical information system techniques, including aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with a homogenous standard guaranteeing accuracy at least equivalent to cartography at a scale of 1:
Amendment 468 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 1 The identification system for agricultural parcels shall be established on the basis of maps or land registry documents or other cartographic references. Use shall be made of computerised geographical information system techniques, including aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with a homogenous standard guaranteeing accuracy at least equivalent to cartography at a scale of 1:5000, while taking into account a boundary delineation margin of no more then 1.5 metres.
Amendment 469 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 71 – paragraph 1 a (new) Member States may decide not to include those agricultural parcels with landscape features or buffer strips in the identification system for agricultural parcels
Amendment 470 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 1 — point a a (new) aa. particulars permitting identification of all agricultural parcels on the holding, their area expressed in hectares to one decimal, their location and, where applicable, their use and whether the agricultural parcel is irrigated;
Amendment 471 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a (a) all the agricultural parcels on the holding, as well as the non-agricultural area for which support referred to in Article 68(2) is claimed, however, agricultural parcels with landscape features or buffer strips do not have to be declared; the beneficiary shall however indicate in his application that he has these agricultural parcels at his disposal and shall, at the request of the competent authorities, indicate their location;
Amendment 472 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new) (aa) a farmer does not have to declare his agricultural parcels with landscape features or buffer strips. That farmer shall however indicate in his application that he has these agricultural parcels at his disposal and shall, at the request of the competent authorities, indicate their location.
Amendment 473 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 a (new) Where the beneficiary referred to in the first subparagraph is a legally registered non-profit organisation whose primary legal constitutional purpose is to actively protect and manage land and/or the historic environment for conservation and public benefit, a Member State may choose to recognise their holdings or a group of their holdings as individual and separate businesses for the purposes of this article.
Amendment 474 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Member States may decide that an aid application or a payment claim that fulfils the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 is to remain valid for a number of years, in particular if the proportion of individual units of agricultural area that are part of a beneficiary’s holding or of other areas for which aid is granted under Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx [DP] or Regulation (EU) No xxx/xxx [RD] does not change during the validity of an application. The beneficiaries concerned are under the obligation to report any change to the information they previously submitted and to provide annual confirmation in the form of a statement of participation.
Amendment 475 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Member States may decide that an aid application or a payment claim that fulfils the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 is to remain valid for the full period of the commitment taken on, provided that the beneficiaries concerned are under the obligation to report annually any change to the information they first submitted.
Amendment 476 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Member States may decide that an aid application or a payment claim that fulfils the requirements laid down in Paragraph 1 is to remain valid for a number of years provided that beneficiaries concerned are under the obligation to report any change to the information they first submitted.
Amendment 477 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Member States may decide that an aid application or a payment claim that fulfils the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 is to remain valid for a number of years provided that beneficiaries concerned are under the obligation to report any change to the information they first submitted. The multiannual application shall however be conditional upon annual confirmation by the beneficiary.
Amendment 478 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. An aid application or payment claim for agri-environmental premiums that fulfils the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 shall remain valid for the full period of the commitment taken on, provided that the beneficiaries concerned are under the obligation to report annually any change to the information they first submitted.
Amendment 479 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. A Member State may decide to use information from applications received for the purposes of agricultural production forecasting.
Amendment 480 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 73 – paragraph 3 a (new) (3a) Notwithstanding paragraph 1, in the case of direct payments and multiannual area and animal-related rural development measures, a Member State may decide to dispense with the filing of annual payment applications, providing it introduces effective alternative procedures for implementing the proposed administrative controls and there are no changes compared to the original payment application.
Amendment 481 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 74 – paragraph 1 The
Amendment 482 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 74 – paragraph 1 The
Amendment 483 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 1 1. In accordance with Article 61, Member States, through the paying agencies or the bodies delegated by them, shall carry out administrative checks on the aid application to verify the eligibility conditions for the aid. Those checks shall be supplemented by on-the-spot checks whose purpose shall be to monitor compliance with the provisions of the aid schemes and the level of inherent risk and whose number shall be adjusted in the light of inherent and control risks.
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 1 1. In accordance with Article 61, Member States, through the paying agencies or the bodies delegated by them, shall carry out administrative checks on the aid application to verify the eligibility conditions for the aid. Those checks shall be supplemented by on-the-spot checks whose purpose shall be to monitor compliance with the provisions of the aid schemes and the level of inherent risk and whose number shall be adjusted in the light of the inherent and control risks.
Amendment 485 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Each Member State shall designate an authority responsible for coordinating the controls and checks provided for in this Chapter.
Amendment 486 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Each Member State shall designate an authority responsible for coordinating the controls and checks provided for in this Chapter.
Amendment 487 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 2 2. For the purpose of on the spot checks Member States shall draw up a sampling plan of agricultural holdings and/or beneficiaries comprising a random part in order to obtain a representative error rate and a risk-based part enabling a primary focus on high-risk claims.
Amendment 488 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 3 3. Member States may use remote sensing, photogrammetry, geodetic survey methods and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) techniques as a means of carrying out on-the-spot checks on agricultural parcels.
Amendment 489 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 3 3. Member States may use remote sensing, photogrammetry, geodetic survey methods and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) techniques as a means of carrying out on-the-spot checks on agricultural parcels.
Amendment 490 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. If greening measures can only be controlled by means of classical on-the- spot checks, the control rate shall be limited to 1 %.
Amendment 491 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. A measurement tolerance shall be defined for the area measurement by a buffer of [1.25] m applied to the perimeter of the agricultural parcel independent of the measurement procedure.
Amendment 492 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 75 – paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. If greening measures can only be controlled by means of classical on-the- spot checks, the control rate shall be 1 %.
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 76 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The payments under the support schemes and measures referred to in Article 68(2) shall be made within the period from 1
Amendment 494 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 76 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The payments under the support schemes and measures referred to in Article 68(2) shall be made within the period from 1
Amendment 495 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 76 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 496 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 76 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 Amendment 497 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 76 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 However Member States may pay advances up to 50 % as regards direct payments and 75% for the support granted under rural development as referred to in Article 68(2) prior to 1 December and not before 16 October, or 15 September for the support referred to in Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No … [RDR].
Amendment 498 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 76 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 However, Member States may pay advances up to 50
Amendment 499 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 76 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 a (new) The Commission may, by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 111, authorise the Member States to increase the percentages referred to in subparagraph 3 to 80% in exceptional and duly justified conditions.
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 76 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 a (new) Without prejudice to the application of the previous subparagraph, the Commission may, by means |