BETA


2014/2147(INI) Fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead AGRI MELO Nuno (icon: PPE PPE) CAPUTO Nicola (icon: S&D S&D), MCINTYRE Anthea (icon: ECR ECR), HUITEMA Jan (icon: ALDE ALDE), SEBASTIA TALAVERA Jordi Vicent (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), ZULLO Marco (icon: EFDD EFDD)
Committee Opinion DEVE
Committee Opinion BUDG
Committee Opinion CONT PITERA Julia (icon: PPE PPE) Louis ALIOT (icon: ENF ENF), Nedzhmi ALI (icon: ALDE ALDE), Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY (icon: ALDE ALDE), Marco VALLI (icon: EFDD EFDD)
Committee Opinion REGI
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2015/12/01
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2015/07/07
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2015/07/07
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 598 votes to 53, with 41 abstentions, a resolution on the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform.

The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the fruit and vegetable producer organisations (POs) by providing a wider range of tools to make it possible, among other measures, to prevent and manage market risks, as well as enhancing and concentrating supply, improving quality and competitiveness, adapting supply to match the market, and providing technical support for environment-friendly production.

Parliament stressed the need to support the fruit and vegetable sector throughout the entire territory of the Union, given its importance in terms of added value and employment, and given the health benefits that it presents through healthy and balanced diets. Union support for POs and for associations of producer organisations (APOs) is aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of the sector, supporting innovation, increasing productivity, enhancing promotion, improving the bargaining position of farmers and restoring balance in the food supply chain.

Against this background, Parliament made the following recommendations:

Improve the degree of organisation of the sector : Parliament noted that the degree of organisation of the sector, as measured by the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by POs, has steadily increased in recent years in the Union as a whole. The share of the total value of EU fruit and vegetable production marketed by POs and APOs in 2010 being about 43 % (34 % in 2004). However, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average , and considerably below the EU average in certain Member States.

Members considered it essential for the future of the F&V regime to alleviate significant regional imbalances . There is a low level of organisation which is not helped by the complexity of PO rules. This has resulted in the suspension and de-recognition of POs in some Member States. The Commission is called upon to reverse this decline by simplifying the scheme’s rules to make POs more attractive to join.

Parliament asked the Commission, also with the aim of increasing the system’s legal certainty , to rationalise the controls and focus them on monitoring the actual execution of each action or measure that is approved as part of the operational programme as well as the cost allocated to them, clearly establishing what is being controlled and who is responsible for carrying out the control. It considered it vital in this context to clarify the European legislation on the recognition of POs in order to guarantee the legal security of the regime and prevent uncertainty among producers. It urged the Commission to clarify the rules for the establishment of transnational (associations of) POs and in particular the rules regarding responsibility and liability, in order to create legal certainty for the national administrations and POs involved.

Increase support to POs : Parliament stressed that it is important to increase the overall level of support to POs and to provide stronger incentives both for the merging of existing POs in APOs and the creation of new ones in both a national and international context . It is essential to provide benefits for POs that decide to take young members.

Crisis management instrument : Parliament considered it vital to contemplate putting instruments in place for managing crises, and the successful initiatives launched by certain POs in that respect need to be clearly identifiable so that they can be replicated elsewhere whenever it is possible. To this end, it called on the Commission to:

always to use preference for local products as the first crisis management measurement in order to promote and protect the single European market and the consumption of Europe’s own products; devise a better coordinated mechanism for market withdrawals in crisis situations , in order to prevent market crises from turning into serious and lengthy disturbances resulting in significant falls in income for F&V farmers; review of crisis management measures including by: (i) increasing the percentage of Union financial assistance,(ii) adjusting the withdrawal prices, (iii) taking into account the production costs, (iv) increasing the volumes that can be withdrawn, and (v) improving the support, in terms of transportation and packaging, for the free distribution of fruits and vegetables with a view to providing the flexibility to adapt support to the form and severity of each crisis; consider making contributions to mutual funds eligible as CPM measures in order to provide better protection for farmers in case of market crises which cause substantial drops in income.

Associations of producer organisations (APOs) : Parliament considered that associations of producer organisations (AOPs) could play an important role in increasing the bargaining power of farmers. It urged the Commission to reinforce incentives for setting up APOs, at both national and European levels, strengthening their capacity to act from a legal perspective, and provide for the possibility of bringing producers who are not members of POs under their umbrella, in order to envisage a greater role for them in the future.

Improve the management of POs : stressing that the competitiveness of POs depends greatly on their management, the resolution urged the Commission to develop existing actions or set up new ones, including training measures and initiatives for the exchange of good practices , which can improve the management of POs and their competitive position in the food supply chain.

POs should be managed by people with marketing skills who are capable of dealing with crisis situations in the agricultural sector.

Unfair trading practices : Parliament called on the Commission to intensify efforts to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain which negatively impact producer returns, depress incomes and threaten the viability and sustainability of the sector. Members considered that unfair trading practices and the pressure exerted on producers, whether or not they are associated, by the large retail chains, are the main obstacle to F&V farmers earning a decent income.

Facilitate access to third-country producers : the Commission is called upon to increase its efforts to support exporters of fruit and vegetables to overcome the increasing number of non-tariff barriers, such as some third-country phytosanitary standards that make export from the EU difficult, if not impossible.

Documents
2015/07/07
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2015/07/06
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2015/05/19
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted an own-initiative report by Nuno MELO (EPP, PT) on the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform.

The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the fruit and vegetable producer organisations (POs) by providing a wider range of tools to make it possible, among other measures, to prevent and manage market risks, as well as enhancing and concentrating supply, improving quality and competitiveness, adapting supply to match the market, and providing technical support for environment-friendly production.

Improve the degree of organisation of the sector : Members noted that the degree of organisation of the sector, as measured by the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by POs, has steadily increased in recent years in the Union as a whole, but that this increase can be attributed to only some of the Member State. However, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average , and considerably below the EU average in certain Member States.

Members considered it essential for the future of the F&V regime to alleviate significant regional imbalances . There is a low level of organisation which is not helped by the complexity of PO rules. This has resulted in the suspension and de-recognition of POs in some Member States. The Commission is called upon to reverse this decline by simplifying the scheme’s rules to make POs more attractive to join.

Members asked the Commission, also with the aim of increasing the system’s legal certainty , to rationalise the controls and focus them on monitoring the actual execution of each action or measure that is approved as part of the operational programme as well as the cost allocated to them, clearly establishing what is being controlled and who is responsible for carrying out the control. They considered it vital in this context to clarify the European legislation on the recognition of POs in order to guarantee the legal security of the regime and prevent uncertainty among producers. They urged the Commission to clarify the rules for the establishment of transnational (associations of) POs and in particular the rules regarding responsibility and liability, in order to create legal certainty for the national administrations and POs involved.

Increase support to POs : the report stressed that it is important to increase the overall level of support to POs and to provide stronger incentives both for the merging of existing POs in APOs and the creation of new ones in both a national and international context . It is essential to provide benefits for POs that decide to take young members.

Crisis management instrument : Members considered it vital to contemplate putting instruments in place for managing crises, and the successful initiatives launched by certain POs in that respect need to be clearly identifiable so that they can be replicated elsewhere whenever it is possible. To this end, they called on the Commission to:

always to use preference for local products as the first crisis management measurement in order to promote and protect the single European market and the consumption of Europe’s own products; devise a better coordinated mechanism for market withdrawals in crisis situations, in order to prevent market crises from turning into serious and lengthy disturbances resulting in significant falls in income for F&V farmers; consider making contributions to mutual funds eligible as CPM measures in order to provide better protection for farmers in case of market crises which cause substantial drops in income.

Associations of producer organisations (APOs) : Members considered that associations of producer organisations (AOPs) could play an important role in increasing the bargaining power of farmers. They urged the Commission to reinforce incentives for setting up APOs, at both national and European levels, strengthening their capacity to act from a legal perspective, and provide for the possibility of bringing producers who are not members of POs under their umbrella, in order to envisage a greater role for them in the future.

Improve the management of POs : stressing that the competitiveness of POs depends greatly on their management, the report urged the Commission to develop existing actions or set up new ones, including training measures and initiatives for the exchange of good practices , which can improve the management of POs and their competitive position in the food supply chain.

POs should be managed by people with marketing skills who are capable of dealing with crisis situations in the agricultural sector.

Unfair trading practices : the report called on the Commission to intensify efforts to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain which negatively impact producer returns, depress incomes and threaten the viability and sustainability of the sector. Members considered that unfair trading practices and the pressure exerted on producers, whether or not they are associated, by the large retail chains, are the main obstacle to F&V farmers earning a decent income.

Facilitate access to third-country producers : the Commission is called upon to increase its efforts to support exporters of fruit and vegetables to overcome the increasing number of non-tariff barriers, such as some third-country phytosanitary standards that make export from the EU difficult, if not impossible.

Documents
2015/05/05
   EP - Vote in committee
2015/03/11
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2015/03/05
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2015/01/29
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2014/12/02
   EP - PITERA Julia (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2014/11/24
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2014/10/06
   EP - MELO Nuno (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
2014/03/04
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables scheme since the 2007 reform.

BACKGROUND: producer organisations (POs) became the cornerstone of the EU regime for the fruit and vegetables (F&V) sector in the 1996 reform. The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the producer organisations (POs) further. A wider range of tools was made available to enable them to prevent and manage market crises.

For the first time, Member States had to establish a national strategy for sustainable operational programmes , integrating a specific environmental framework.

23 Member States established national strategies for sustainable operational programmes (NSs), which include a national framework for environmental actions (NEF). All NEFs have taken on board amendments required by the Commission.

In 2003-2010 there was a gradual, slight decline in the total EU area cropped with F&V (-6%) and a sharper fall in the number of holdings with F&V crops (-39.1%).

In 2004-2010, there was also a small fall in the volume of F&V production in the EU (a -3% decrease in average F&V production in 2008-2010 as compared to 2004-2006).

Market crises emerged in 2009 (e.g. peaches and nectarines, tomatoes) and in 2011 (E. coli crisis followed by a new market crisis for peaches and nectarines). In addition, in several Member States, the 2008 financial and economic crisis may have affected domestic F&V consumption (resulting in lower demand).

CONTENT: in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Council presented a report on the implementation of the provisions concerning producer organisations, operational funds and operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform.

The report is based primarily on information Member States provided on the implementation of the EU fruit and vegetables scheme on their territory and, in particular, on information in the annual reports and evaluation reports sent to the Commission. These are mainly based on data for 2008-2010.

In 2008-2010, at EU level, there were positive trends regarding the organisation rate of the F&V sector, the share of total F&V producers who are members of POs and the number of POs members of APOs.

The annual reports and the 2012 evaluation reports also offer a more contrasting picture:

Low number of producer organisations : in 2010, there were 1599 recognised POs in 23 Member States. In 2010, the organisation rate was about 43.0 % (43.9% if producer groups are also included). The share of total F&V producers that are member of POs has continued to increase (from 10.4 % in 2004 to 16.5 % in 2010).

A crucial issue is the persistently low degree or lack of organisation in some Member States. This needs careful analysis with a view to identifying, where appropriate, additional measures to encourage not only: (i) a further rise in the degree of organisation of producers in the whole EU but also; (ii) a decrease of the imbalance of F&V producers' organisation within the EU.

A low degree or lack of organisation also means that most F&V producers do not belong to a PO , so they do not directly benefit from specific EU aid for the sector. This proportion is highest in some southern Member States and some MSs that joined the EU in 2004 and later. Those producers, frequently the smallest, cannot even benefit from the services that POs could provide, have very weak bargaining power within the supply chain and are more exposed to the risks linked to market globalisation and climate change.

Increasing the rate of organisation of the F&V sector remains crucial especially in Member States where the organisation is still very low. In this respect, there is also the need to explore measures to stimulate forms of cooperation to help PO's and non-organised producers to better deal with those challenges.

Contribute more to key objectives : operational programmes could contribute more to key objectives such as improving attractiveness of POs, boosting products’ commercial value, optimising production costs, and stabilising producer prices.

Crisis prevention and management instruments : between 2008-2010, the annual expenditure for operational programmes (EUR 1 252.1m on average) mainly concerned actions to improve marketing (24.0 % of the total) and environmental actions (23.8%), followed by actions to plan production (22.2 %) and to improve or maintain product quality (20.3%).

The use of crisis prevention and management instruments was very low (EUR 35.6m; 2.8% of total average annual expenditure). These instruments should be improved.

Weaknesses in the setting-up of national strategies : the reports have identified two important weaknesses in the national strategies of some Member States: (i) too wide a range of objectives was adopted, instead of focus on a few priorities; (ii) precise pre-defined targets were lacking for the different objectives set.

In most Member States, expenditure for ‘strategic’ measures, such as research and experimental production , remains negligible. Therefore, it could be relevant to reinforce the application of the resources available on certain priority measures, which have a stronger impact on competitiveness, income stability and market demand.

Complexity of rules and lack of legal certainty : these elements have also been indicated as weaknesses of the current regime. Simplification and securing the legal framework need to be a priority in a future revision, also for reducing the red tape for farmers and managing authorities.

Introduction of new measures for the sector : these might require the reallocation of some financial resources without increasing the overall amounts available for the sector in order to ensure the budget neutrality within market measures in pillar 1.

To address the above-mentioned shortcomings, the current EU F&V regime needs to be reviewed to ensure that support for producer organisations is better focused so that it can achieve the overall objectives set for the 2007 reform and CAP 2020 in all Member States.

The Commission could build upon the results of this report and the upcoming debate to present at a later stage legislative proposals to revise the Union aid scheme for the fruit and vegetables sector.

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0170/2015 - Nuno Melo - Résolution #

2015/07/07 Outcome: +: 598, -: 53, 0: 41
DE IT FR PL ES RO GB CZ HU BG BE AT PT NL FI SK LT HR LV SI LU IE EE MT CY EL DK SE
Total
86
70
68
49
48
31
73
21
17
16
16
16
18
23
13
12
10
10
8
8
6
10
6
5
4
17
12
18
icon: PPE PPE
203
2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
175
3

Netherlands S&D

3

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

2
3
icon: ALDE ALDE
65

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Denmark ALDE

2
icon: ECR ECR
69

Italy ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2
2

Lithuania ECR

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Greece ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Hungary Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
33

Poland ENF

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Austria ENF

3

Netherlands ENF

Against (2)

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
46

Italy GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
4

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
12

Germany NI

2

France NI

1

Poland NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

2
icon: EFDD EFDD
43

France EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2
AmendmentsDossier
248 2014/2147(INI)
2015/01/28 CONT 26 amendments...
source: 546.777
2015/03/05 AGRI 222 amendments...
source: 549.240

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0/shadows/3
name
VIEGAS Miguel
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE546.720
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-PR-546720_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE549.240
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AM-549240_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE544.264&secondRef=04
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AD-544264_EN.html
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/2/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/3
date
2015-05-19T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0170_EN.html title: A8-0170/2015
summary
events/3
date
2015-05-19T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0170_EN.html title: A8-0170/2015
summary
events/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150706&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/6
date
2015-07-07T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0251_EN.html title: T8-0251/2015
summary
events/6
date
2015-07-07T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0251_EN.html title: T8-0251/2015
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
rapporteur
name: MELO Nuno date: 2014-10-06T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
2014-10-06T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MELO Nuno group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: PITERA Julia date: 2014-12-02T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2014-12-02T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: PITERA Julia group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
docs/3/body
EC
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0170&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0170_EN.html
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0251
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0251_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2014-03-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0112 title: COM(2014)0112 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52014DC0112:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/ title: Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner: HOGAN Phil type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2014-11-24T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: CAPUTO Nicola group: ECR name: MCINTYRE Anthea group: ALDE name: HUITEMA Jan group: GUE/NGL name: VIEGAS Miguel group: Verts/ALE name: SEBASTIÀ Jordi group: EFD name: ZULLO Marco responsible: True committee: AGRI date: 2014-10-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: MELO Nuno body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP responsible: False committee: CONT date: 2014-12-02T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: EPP name: PITERA Julia body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
  • date: 2015-05-05T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: CAPUTO Nicola group: ECR name: MCINTYRE Anthea group: ALDE name: HUITEMA Jan group: GUE/NGL name: VIEGAS Miguel group: Verts/ALE name: SEBASTIÀ Jordi group: EFD name: ZULLO Marco responsible: True committee: AGRI date: 2014-10-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: MELO Nuno body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG body: EP responsible: False committee: CONT date: 2014-12-02T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: EPP name: PITERA Julia body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
  • date: 2015-05-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0170&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0170/2015 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2015-07-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150706&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2015-07-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0251 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0251/2015 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: Agriculture and Rural Development commissioner: HOGAN Phil
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
2014-10-06T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MELO Nuno group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
AGRI
date
2014-10-06T00:00:00
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
rapporteur
group: EPP name: MELO Nuno
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
opinion
False
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
opinion
False
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
CONT
date
2014-12-02T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgetary Control
rapporteur
group: EPP name: PITERA Julia
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2014-12-02T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: PITERA Julia group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/3
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
opinion
False
committees/4
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
docs
  • date: 2015-01-29T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE546.720 title: PE546.720 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2015-03-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE549.240 title: PE549.240 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2015-03-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE544.264&secondRef=04 title: PE544.264 committee: CONT type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2015-12-01T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=25762&j=0&l=en title: SP(2015)575 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2014-03-04T00:00:00 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0112 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(2014)0112 summary: PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables scheme since the 2007 reform. BACKGROUND: producer organisations (POs) became the cornerstone of the EU regime for the fruit and vegetables (F&V) sector in the 1996 reform. The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the producer organisations (POs) further. A wider range of tools was made available to enable them to prevent and manage market crises. For the first time, Member States had to establish a national strategy for sustainable operational programmes , integrating a specific environmental framework. 23 Member States established national strategies for sustainable operational programmes (NSs), which include a national framework for environmental actions (NEF). All NEFs have taken on board amendments required by the Commission. In 2003-2010 there was a gradual, slight decline in the total EU area cropped with F&V (-6%) and a sharper fall in the number of holdings with F&V crops (-39.1%). In 2004-2010, there was also a small fall in the volume of F&V production in the EU (a -3% decrease in average F&V production in 2008-2010 as compared to 2004-2006). Market crises emerged in 2009 (e.g. peaches and nectarines, tomatoes) and in 2011 (E. coli crisis followed by a new market crisis for peaches and nectarines). In addition, in several Member States, the 2008 financial and economic crisis may have affected domestic F&V consumption (resulting in lower demand). CONTENT: in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Council presented a report on the implementation of the provisions concerning producer organisations, operational funds and operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform. The report is based primarily on information Member States provided on the implementation of the EU fruit and vegetables scheme on their territory and, in particular, on information in the annual reports and evaluation reports sent to the Commission. These are mainly based on data for 2008-2010. In 2008-2010, at EU level, there were positive trends regarding the organisation rate of the F&V sector, the share of total F&V producers who are members of POs and the number of POs members of APOs. The annual reports and the 2012 evaluation reports also offer a more contrasting picture: Low number of producer organisations : in 2010, there were 1599 recognised POs in 23 Member States. In 2010, the organisation rate was about 43.0 % (43.9% if producer groups are also included). The share of total F&V producers that are member of POs has continued to increase (from 10.4 % in 2004 to 16.5 % in 2010). A crucial issue is the persistently low degree or lack of organisation in some Member States. This needs careful analysis with a view to identifying, where appropriate, additional measures to encourage not only: (i) a further rise in the degree of organisation of producers in the whole EU but also; (ii) a decrease of the imbalance of F&V producers' organisation within the EU. A low degree or lack of organisation also means that most F&V producers do not belong to a PO , so they do not directly benefit from specific EU aid for the sector. This proportion is highest in some southern Member States and some MSs that joined the EU in 2004 and later. Those producers, frequently the smallest, cannot even benefit from the services that POs could provide, have very weak bargaining power within the supply chain and are more exposed to the risks linked to market globalisation and climate change. Increasing the rate of organisation of the F&V sector remains crucial especially in Member States where the organisation is still very low. In this respect, there is also the need to explore measures to stimulate forms of cooperation to help PO's and non-organised producers to better deal with those challenges. Contribute more to key objectives : operational programmes could contribute more to key objectives such as improving attractiveness of POs, boosting products’ commercial value, optimising production costs, and stabilising producer prices. Crisis prevention and management instruments : between 2008-2010, the annual expenditure for operational programmes (EUR 1 252.1m on average) mainly concerned actions to improve marketing (24.0 % of the total) and environmental actions (23.8%), followed by actions to plan production (22.2 %) and to improve or maintain product quality (20.3%). The use of crisis prevention and management instruments was very low (EUR 35.6m; 2.8% of total average annual expenditure). These instruments should be improved. Weaknesses in the setting-up of national strategies : the reports have identified two important weaknesses in the national strategies of some Member States: (i) too wide a range of objectives was adopted, instead of focus on a few priorities; (ii) precise pre-defined targets were lacking for the different objectives set. In most Member States, expenditure for ‘strategic’ measures, such as research and experimental production , remains negligible. Therefore, it could be relevant to reinforce the application of the resources available on certain priority measures, which have a stronger impact on competitiveness, income stability and market demand. Complexity of rules and lack of legal certainty : these elements have also been indicated as weaknesses of the current regime. Simplification and securing the legal framework need to be a priority in a future revision, also for reducing the red tape for farmers and managing authorities. Introduction of new measures for the sector : these might require the reallocation of some financial resources without increasing the overall amounts available for the sector in order to ensure the budget neutrality within market measures in pillar 1. To address the above-mentioned shortcomings, the current EU F&V regime needs to be reviewed to ensure that support for producer organisations is better focused so that it can achieve the overall objectives set for the 2007 reform and CAP 2020 in all Member States. The Commission could build upon the results of this report and the upcoming debate to present at a later stage legislative proposals to revise the Union aid scheme for the fruit and vegetables sector.
  • date: 2014-11-24T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2015-05-05T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2015-05-19T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0170&language=EN title: A8-0170/2015 summary: The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted an own-initiative report by Nuno MELO (EPP, PT) on the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform. The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the fruit and vegetable producer organisations (POs) by providing a wider range of tools to make it possible, among other measures, to prevent and manage market risks, as well as enhancing and concentrating supply, improving quality and competitiveness, adapting supply to match the market, and providing technical support for environment-friendly production. Improve the degree of organisation of the sector : Members noted that the degree of organisation of the sector, as measured by the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by POs, has steadily increased in recent years in the Union as a whole, but that this increase can be attributed to only some of the Member State. However, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average , and considerably below the EU average in certain Member States. Members considered it essential for the future of the F&V regime to alleviate significant regional imbalances . There is a low level of organisation which is not helped by the complexity of PO rules. This has resulted in the suspension and de-recognition of POs in some Member States. The Commission is called upon to reverse this decline by simplifying the scheme’s rules to make POs more attractive to join. Members asked the Commission, also with the aim of increasing the system’s legal certainty , to rationalise the controls and focus them on monitoring the actual execution of each action or measure that is approved as part of the operational programme as well as the cost allocated to them, clearly establishing what is being controlled and who is responsible for carrying out the control. They considered it vital in this context to clarify the European legislation on the recognition of POs in order to guarantee the legal security of the regime and prevent uncertainty among producers. They urged the Commission to clarify the rules for the establishment of transnational (associations of) POs and in particular the rules regarding responsibility and liability, in order to create legal certainty for the national administrations and POs involved. Increase support to POs : the report stressed that it is important to increase the overall level of support to POs and to provide stronger incentives both for the merging of existing POs in APOs and the creation of new ones in both a national and international context . It is essential to provide benefits for POs that decide to take young members. Crisis management instrument : Members considered it vital to contemplate putting instruments in place for managing crises, and the successful initiatives launched by certain POs in that respect need to be clearly identifiable so that they can be replicated elsewhere whenever it is possible. To this end, they called on the Commission to: always to use preference for local products as the first crisis management measurement in order to promote and protect the single European market and the consumption of Europe’s own products; devise a better coordinated mechanism for market withdrawals in crisis situations, in order to prevent market crises from turning into serious and lengthy disturbances resulting in significant falls in income for F&V farmers; consider making contributions to mutual funds eligible as CPM measures in order to provide better protection for farmers in case of market crises which cause substantial drops in income. Associations of producer organisations (APOs) : Members considered that associations of producer organisations (AOPs) could play an important role in increasing the bargaining power of farmers. They urged the Commission to reinforce incentives for setting up APOs, at both national and European levels, strengthening their capacity to act from a legal perspective, and provide for the possibility of bringing producers who are not members of POs under their umbrella, in order to envisage a greater role for them in the future. Improve the management of POs : stressing that the competitiveness of POs depends greatly on their management, the report urged the Commission to develop existing actions or set up new ones, including training measures and initiatives for the exchange of good practices , which can improve the management of POs and their competitive position in the food supply chain. POs should be managed by people with marketing skills who are capable of dealing with crisis situations in the agricultural sector. Unfair trading practices : the report called on the Commission to intensify efforts to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain which negatively impact producer returns, depress incomes and threaten the viability and sustainability of the sector. Members considered that unfair trading practices and the pressure exerted on producers, whether or not they are associated, by the large retail chains, are the main obstacle to F&V farmers earning a decent income. Facilitate access to third-country producers : the Commission is called upon to increase its efforts to support exporters of fruit and vegetables to overcome the increasing number of non-tariff barriers, such as some third-country phytosanitary standards that make export from the EU difficult, if not impossible.
  • date: 2015-07-06T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150706&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2015-07-07T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=25762&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2015-07-07T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0251 title: T8-0251/2015 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 598 votes to 53, with 41 abstentions, a resolution on the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform. The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the fruit and vegetable producer organisations (POs) by providing a wider range of tools to make it possible, among other measures, to prevent and manage market risks, as well as enhancing and concentrating supply, improving quality and competitiveness, adapting supply to match the market, and providing technical support for environment-friendly production. Parliament stressed the need to support the fruit and vegetable sector throughout the entire territory of the Union, given its importance in terms of added value and employment, and given the health benefits that it presents through healthy and balanced diets. Union support for POs and for associations of producer organisations (APOs) is aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of the sector, supporting innovation, increasing productivity, enhancing promotion, improving the bargaining position of farmers and restoring balance in the food supply chain. Against this background, Parliament made the following recommendations: Improve the degree of organisation of the sector : Parliament noted that the degree of organisation of the sector, as measured by the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by POs, has steadily increased in recent years in the Union as a whole. The share of the total value of EU fruit and vegetable production marketed by POs and APOs in 2010 being about 43 % (34 % in 2004). However, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average , and considerably below the EU average in certain Member States. Members considered it essential for the future of the F&V regime to alleviate significant regional imbalances . There is a low level of organisation which is not helped by the complexity of PO rules. This has resulted in the suspension and de-recognition of POs in some Member States. The Commission is called upon to reverse this decline by simplifying the scheme’s rules to make POs more attractive to join. Parliament asked the Commission, also with the aim of increasing the system’s legal certainty , to rationalise the controls and focus them on monitoring the actual execution of each action or measure that is approved as part of the operational programme as well as the cost allocated to them, clearly establishing what is being controlled and who is responsible for carrying out the control. It considered it vital in this context to clarify the European legislation on the recognition of POs in order to guarantee the legal security of the regime and prevent uncertainty among producers. It urged the Commission to clarify the rules for the establishment of transnational (associations of) POs and in particular the rules regarding responsibility and liability, in order to create legal certainty for the national administrations and POs involved. Increase support to POs : Parliament stressed that it is important to increase the overall level of support to POs and to provide stronger incentives both for the merging of existing POs in APOs and the creation of new ones in both a national and international context . It is essential to provide benefits for POs that decide to take young members. Crisis management instrument : Parliament considered it vital to contemplate putting instruments in place for managing crises, and the successful initiatives launched by certain POs in that respect need to be clearly identifiable so that they can be replicated elsewhere whenever it is possible. To this end, it called on the Commission to: always to use preference for local products as the first crisis management measurement in order to promote and protect the single European market and the consumption of Europe’s own products; devise a better coordinated mechanism for market withdrawals in crisis situations , in order to prevent market crises from turning into serious and lengthy disturbances resulting in significant falls in income for F&V farmers; review of crisis management measures including by: (i) increasing the percentage of Union financial assistance,(ii) adjusting the withdrawal prices, (iii) taking into account the production costs, (iv) increasing the volumes that can be withdrawn, and (v) improving the support, in terms of transportation and packaging, for the free distribution of fruits and vegetables with a view to providing the flexibility to adapt support to the form and severity of each crisis; consider making contributions to mutual funds eligible as CPM measures in order to provide better protection for farmers in case of market crises which cause substantial drops in income. Associations of producer organisations (APOs) : Parliament considered that associations of producer organisations (AOPs) could play an important role in increasing the bargaining power of farmers. It urged the Commission to reinforce incentives for setting up APOs, at both national and European levels, strengthening their capacity to act from a legal perspective, and provide for the possibility of bringing producers who are not members of POs under their umbrella, in order to envisage a greater role for them in the future. Improve the management of POs : stressing that the competitiveness of POs depends greatly on their management, the resolution urged the Commission to develop existing actions or set up new ones, including training measures and initiatives for the exchange of good practices , which can improve the management of POs and their competitive position in the food supply chain. POs should be managed by people with marketing skills who are capable of dealing with crisis situations in the agricultural sector. Unfair trading practices : Parliament called on the Commission to intensify efforts to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain which negatively impact producer returns, depress incomes and threaten the viability and sustainability of the sector. Members considered that unfair trading practices and the pressure exerted on producers, whether or not they are associated, by the large retail chains, are the main obstacle to F&V farmers earning a decent income. Facilitate access to third-country producers : the Commission is called upon to increase its efforts to support exporters of fruit and vegetables to overcome the increasing number of non-tariff barriers, such as some third-country phytosanitary standards that make export from the EU difficult, if not impossible.
  • date: 2015-07-07T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/ title: Agriculture and Rural Development commissioner: HOGAN Phil
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
AGRI/8/01721
New
  • AGRI/8/01721
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.10.06.01 Fruit, citrus fruits
  • 3.10.06.02 Vegetables
New
3.10.06.01
Fruit, citrus fruits
3.10.06.02
Vegetables
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52014DC0112:EN
activities/3/docs/0/text
  • The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted an own-initiative report by Nuno MELO (EPP, PT) on the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform.

    The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the fruit and vegetable producer organisations (POs) by providing a wider range of tools to make it possible, among other measures, to prevent and manage market risks, as well as enhancing and concentrating supply, improving quality and competitiveness, adapting supply to match the market, and providing technical support for environment-friendly production.

    Improve the degree of organisation of the sector: Members noted that the degree of organisation of the sector, as measured by the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by POs, has steadily increased in recent years in the Union as a whole, but that this increase can be attributed to only some of the Member State. However, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average, and considerably below the EU average in certain Member States.

    Members considered it essential for the future of the F&V regime to alleviate significant regional imbalances. There is a low level of organisation which is not helped by the complexity of PO rules. This has resulted in the suspension and de-recognition of POs in some Member States. The Commission is called upon to reverse this decline by simplifying the scheme’s rules to make POs more attractive to join.

    Members asked the Commission, also with the aim of increasing the system’s legal certainty, to rationalise the controls and focus them on monitoring the actual execution of each action or measure that is approved as part of the operational programme as well as the cost allocated to them, clearly establishing what is being controlled and who is responsible for carrying out the control. They considered it vital in this context to clarify the European legislation on the recognition of POs in order to guarantee the legal security of the regime and prevent uncertainty among producers. They urged the Commission to clarify the rules for the establishment of transnational (associations of) POs and in particular the rules regarding responsibility and liability, in order to create legal certainty for the national administrations and POs involved.

    Increase support to POs: the report stressed that it is important to increase the overall level of support to POs and to provide stronger incentives both for the merging of existing POs in APOs and the creation of new ones in both a national and international context. It is essential to provide benefits for POs that decide to take young members.

    Crisis management instrument: Members considered it vital to contemplate putting instruments in place for managing crises, and the successful initiatives launched by certain POs in that respect need to be clearly identifiable so that they can be replicated elsewhere whenever it is possible. To this end, they called on the Commission to:

    • always to use preference for local products as the first crisis management measurement in order to promote and protect the single European market and the consumption of Europe’s own products;
    • devise a better coordinated mechanism for market withdrawals in crisis situations, in order to prevent market crises from turning into serious and lengthy disturbances resulting in significant falls in income for F&V farmers;
    • consider making contributions to mutual funds eligible as CPM measures in order to provide better protection for farmers in case of market crises which cause substantial drops in income.

    Associations of producer organisations (APOs): Members considered that associations of producer organisations (AOPs) could play an important role in increasing the bargaining power of farmers. They urged the Commission to reinforce incentives for setting up APOs, at both national and European levels, strengthening their capacity to act from a legal perspective, and provide for the possibility of bringing producers who are not members of POs under their umbrella, in order to envisage a greater role for them in the future.

    Improve the management of POs: stressing that the competitiveness of POs depends greatly on their management, the report urged the Commission to develop existing actions or set up new ones, including training measures and initiatives for the exchange of good practices, which can improve the management of POs and their competitive position in the food supply chain.

    POs should be managed by people with marketing skills who are capable of dealing with crisis situations in the agricultural sector.

    Unfair trading practices: the report called on the Commission to intensify efforts to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain which negatively impact producer returns, depress incomes and threaten the viability and sustainability of the sector. Members considered that unfair trading practices and the pressure exerted on producers, whether or not they are associated, by the large retail chains, are the main obstacle to F&V farmers earning a decent income.

    Facilitate access to third-country producers: the Commission is called upon to increase its efforts to support exporters of fruit and vegetables to overcome the increasing number of non-tariff barriers, such as some third-country phytosanitary standards that make export from the EU difficult, if not impossible.

activities/5/docs/0/text
  • The European Parliament adopted by 598 votes to 53, with 41 abstentions, a resolution on the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform.

    The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the fruit and vegetable producer organisations (POs) by providing a wider range of tools to make it possible, among other measures, to prevent and manage market risks, as well as enhancing and concentrating supply, improving quality and competitiveness, adapting supply to match the market, and providing technical support for environment-friendly production.

    Parliament stressed the need to support the fruit and vegetable sector throughout the entire territory of the Union, given its importance in terms of added value and employment, and given the health benefits that it presents through healthy and balanced diets. Union support for POs and for associations of producer organisations (APOs) is aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of the sector, supporting innovation, increasing productivity, enhancing promotion, improving the bargaining position of farmers and restoring balance in the food supply chain.

    Against this background, Parliament made the following recommendations:

    Improve the degree of organisation of the sector: Parliament noted that the degree of organisation of the sector, as measured by the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by POs, has steadily increased in recent years in the Union as a whole. The share of the total value of EU fruit and vegetable production marketed by POs and APOs in 2010 being about 43 % (34 % in 2004). However, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average, and considerably below the EU average in certain Member States.

    Members considered it essential for the future of the F&V regime to alleviate significant regional imbalances. There is a low level of organisation which is not helped by the complexity of PO rules. This has resulted in the suspension and de-recognition of POs in some Member States. The Commission is called upon to reverse this decline by simplifying the scheme’s rules to make POs more attractive to join.

    Parliament asked the Commission, also with the aim of increasing the system’s legal certainty, to rationalise the controls and focus them on monitoring the actual execution of each action or measure that is approved as part of the operational programme as well as the cost allocated to them, clearly establishing what is being controlled and who is responsible for carrying out the control. It considered it vital in this context to clarify the European legislation on the recognition of POs in order to guarantee the legal security of the regime and prevent uncertainty among producers. It urged the Commission to clarify the rules for the establishment of transnational (associations of) POs and in particular the rules regarding responsibility and liability, in order to create legal certainty for the national administrations and POs involved.

    Increase support to POs: Parliament stressed that it is important to increase the overall level of support to POs and to provide stronger incentives both for the merging of existing POs in APOs and the creation of new ones in both a national and international context. It is essential to provide benefits for POs that decide to take young members.

    Crisis management instrument: Parliament considered it vital to contemplate putting instruments in place for managing crises, and the successful initiatives launched by certain POs in that respect need to be clearly identifiable so that they can be replicated elsewhere whenever it is possible. To this end, it called on the Commission to:

    • always to use preference for local products as the first crisis management measurement in order to promote and protect the single European market and the consumption of Europe’s own products;
    • devise a better coordinated mechanism for market withdrawals in crisis situations, in order to prevent market crises from turning into serious and lengthy disturbances resulting in significant falls in income for F&V farmers;
    • review of crisis management measures including by: (i) increasing the percentage of Union financial assistance,(ii) adjusting the withdrawal prices, (iii) taking into account the production costs, (iv) increasing the volumes that can be withdrawn, and (v) improving the support, in terms of transportation and packaging, for the free distribution of fruits and vegetables with a view to providing the flexibility to adapt support to the form and severity of each crisis;
    • consider making contributions to mutual funds eligible as CPM measures in order to provide better protection for farmers in case of market crises which cause substantial drops in income.

    Associations of producer organisations (APOs): Parliament considered that associations of producer organisations (AOPs) could play an important role in increasing the bargaining power of farmers. It urged the Commission to reinforce incentives for setting up APOs, at both national and European levels, strengthening their capacity to act from a legal perspective, and provide for the possibility of bringing producers who are not members of POs under their umbrella, in order to envisage a greater role for them in the future.

    Improve the management of POs: stressing that the competitiveness of POs depends greatly on their management, the resolution urged the Commission to develop existing actions or set up new ones, including training measures and initiatives for the exchange of good practices, which can improve the management of POs and their competitive position in the food supply chain.

    POs should be managed by people with marketing skills who are capable of dealing with crisis situations in the agricultural sector.

    Unfair trading practices: Parliament called on the Commission to intensify efforts to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain which negatively impact producer returns, depress incomes and threaten the viability and sustainability of the sector. Members considered that unfair trading practices and the pressure exerted on producers, whether or not they are associated, by the large retail chains, are the main obstacle to F&V farmers earning a decent income.

    Facilitate access to third-country producers: the Commission is called upon to increase its efforts to support exporters of fruit and vegetables to overcome the increasing number of non-tariff barriers, such as some third-country phytosanitary standards that make export from the EU difficult, if not impossible.

activities/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150706&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/4/type
Old
Debate scheduled
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/5/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0251 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0251/2015
activities/5/type
Old
Vote in plenary scheduled
New
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Procedure completed
activities/4/type
Old
Debate in plenary scheduled
New
Debate scheduled
activities/4/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/5
date
2015-07-07T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in plenary scheduled
activities/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0170&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0170/2015
activities/4/date
Old
2015-10-06T00:00:00
New
2015-07-06T00:00:00
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52014DC0112:EN
activities/4/date
Old
2015-06-24T00:00:00
New
2015-10-06T00:00:00
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52014DC0112:EN
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52014DC0112:EN
activities/4/date
Old
2015-07-07T00:00:00
New
2015-06-24T00:00:00
activities/3
date
2015-05-19T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
activities/3/date
Old
2015-06-08T00:00:00
New
2015-07-07T00:00:00
activities/2
date
2015-05-05T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
activities/2/date
Old
2015-05-18T00:00:00
New
2015-06-08T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/5
group
EFD
name
ZULLO Marco
committees/0/shadows/5
group
EFD
name
ZULLO Marco
activities/2
date
2015-05-18T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
activities/0/docs/0/text
  • PURPOSE: presentation of the Commission report on the fruit and vegetables scheme since the 2007 reform.

    BACKGROUND: producer organisations (POs) became the cornerstone of the EU regime for the fruit and vegetables (F&V) sector in the 1996 reform. The 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the producer organisations (POs) further. A wider range of tools was made available to enable them to prevent and manage market crises.

    For the first time, Member States had to establish a national strategy for sustainable operational programmes, integrating a specific environmental framework.

    23 Member States established national strategies for sustainable operational programmes (NSs), which include a national framework for environmental actions (NEF). All NEFs have taken on board amendments required by the Commission.

    In 2003-2010 there was a gradual, slight decline in the total EU area cropped with F&V (-6%) and a sharper fall in the number of holdings with F&V crops (-39.1%).

    In 2004-2010, there was also a small fall in the volume of F&V production in the EU (a -3% decrease in average F&V production in 2008-2010 as compared to 2004-2006).

    Market crises emerged in 2009 (e.g. peaches and nectarines, tomatoes) and in 2011 (E. coli crisis followed by a new market crisis for peaches and nectarines). In addition, in several Member States, the 2008 financial and economic crisis may have affected domestic F&V consumption (resulting in lower demand).

    CONTENT: in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Council presented a report on the implementation of the provisions concerning producer organisations, operational funds and operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform.

    The report is based primarily on information Member States provided on the implementation of the EU fruit and vegetables scheme on their territory and, in particular, on information in the annual reports and evaluation reports sent to the Commission. These are mainly based on data for 2008-2010.

    In 2008-2010, at EU level, there were positive trends regarding the organisation rate of the F&V sector, the share of total F&V producers who are members of POs and the number of POs members of APOs.

    The annual reports and the 2012 evaluation reports also offer a more contrasting picture:

    Low number of producer organisations: in 2010, there were 1599 recognised POs in 23 Member States. In 2010, the organisation rate was about 43.0 % (43.9% if producer groups are also included). The share of total F&V producers that are member of POs has continued to increase (from 10.4 % in 2004 to 16.5 % in 2010).

    A crucial issue is the persistently low degree or lack of organisation in some Member States. This needs careful analysis with a view to identifying, where appropriate, additional measures to encourage not only: (i) a further rise in the degree of organisation of producers in the whole EU but also; (ii) a decrease of the imbalance of F&V producers' organisation within the EU.

    A low degree or lack of organisation also means that most F&V producers do not belong to a PO, so they do not directly benefit from specific EU aid for the sector. This proportion is highest in some southern Member States and some MSs that joined the EU in 2004 and later. Those producers, frequently the smallest, cannot even benefit from the services that POs could provide, have very weak bargaining power within the supply chain and are more exposed to the risks linked to market globalisation and climate change.

    Increasing the rate of organisation of the F&V sector remains crucial especially in Member States where the organisation is still very low. In this respect, there is also the need to explore measures to stimulate forms of cooperation to help PO's and non-organised producers to better deal with those challenges.

    Contribute more to key objectives: operational programmes could contribute more to key objectives such as improving attractiveness of POs, boosting products’ commercial value, optimising production costs, and stabilising producer prices.

    Crisis prevention and management instruments: between 2008-2010, the annual expenditure for operational programmes (EUR 1 252.1m on average) mainly concerned actions to improve marketing (24.0 % of the total) and environmental actions (23.8%), followed by actions to plan production (22.2 %) and to improve or maintain product quality (20.3%).

    The use of crisis prevention and management instruments was very low (EUR 35.6m; 2.8% of total average annual expenditure). These instruments should be improved.

    Weaknesses in the setting-up of national strategies: the reports have identified two important weaknesses in the national strategies of some Member States: (i) too wide a range of objectives was adopted, instead of focus on a few priorities; (ii) precise pre-defined targets were lacking for the different objectives set.

    In most Member States, expenditure for ‘strategic’ measures, such as research and experimental production, remains negligible. Therefore, it could be relevant to reinforce the application of the resources available on certain priority measures, which have a stronger impact on competitiveness, income stability and market demand.

    Complexity of rules and lack of legal certainty: these elements have also been indicated as weaknesses of the current regime. Simplification and securing the legal framework need to be a priority in a future revision, also for reducing the red tape for farmers and managing authorities.

    Introduction of new measures for the sector: these might require the reallocation of some financial resources without increasing the overall amounts available for the sector in order to ensure the budget neutrality within market measures in pillar 1.

    To address the above-mentioned shortcomings, the current EU F&V regime needs to be reviewed to ensure that support for producer organisations is better focused so that it can achieve the overall objectives set for the 2007 reform and CAP 2020 in all Member States.

    The Commission could build upon the results of this report and the upcoming debate to present at a later stage legislative proposals to revise the Union aid scheme for the fruit and vegetables sector.

activities/0/commission/0
DG
Commissioner
HOGAN Phil
other/0
body
EC
dg
commissioner
HOGAN Phil
activities/1/committees/2/date
2014-12-02T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: PITERA Julia
committees/2/date
2014-12-02T00:00:00
committees/2/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: PITERA Julia
activities/1
date
2014-11-24T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
AGRI/8/01721
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Preparatory phase in Parliament
New
Awaiting committee decision
activities
  • date: 2014-03-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0112 title: COM(2014)0112 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52014DC0112:EN body: EC type: Non-legislative basic document published commission:
committees
  • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: CAPUTO Nicola group: ECR name: MCINTYRE Anthea group: ALDE name: HUITEMA Jan group: GUE/NGL name: VIEGAS Miguel group: Verts/ALE name: SEBASTIÀ Jordi responsible: True committee: AGRI date: 2014-10-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: EPP name: MELO Nuno
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgets committee: BUDG
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Regional Development committee: REGI
links
other
    procedure
    reference
    2014/2147(INI)
    title
    Fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform
    legal_basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    stage_reached
    Preparatory phase in Parliament
    subtype
    Initiative
    type
    INI - Own-initiative procedure
    subject