Procedure : 2008/0104(CNS)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0401/2008

Texts tabled :

A6-0401/2008

Debates :

PV 18/11/2008 - 4
CRE 18/11/2008 - 4

Votes :

PV 19/11/2008 - 7.1
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2008)0550

REPORT     *
PDF 214kWORD 438k
14.10.2008
PE 407.828v02-00 A6-0401/2008

on the proposal for a Council regulation on modifications to the common agricultural policy by amending Regulations (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 3/2008 and (EC) No […]/2008

(COM(2008)0306 – C6‑0241/2008 – 2008/0104(CNS))

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Rapporteur: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a Council regulation on modifications to the common agricultural policy by amending Regulations (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 3/2008 and (EC) No […]/2008

(COM(2008)0306 – C6‑0241/2008 – 2008/0104(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0306),

–   having regard to Articles 36 and 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6‑0241/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6‑0401/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) In respect of cereals the system should be modified to ensure competitiveness and market orientation for the sector while keeping the role of intervention as a safety net in case of market disruptions and facilitating farmers’ response to market conditions. The Council Conclusions on the reform of the intervention system for maize provided for a review of the whole cereals intervention system in the context of the Health Check, based on an analysis which indicated a certain risk for additional barley intervention if prices were low. The present outlook for cereals has however since changed significantly, and is characterised by a favourable world market price environment driven by expanding world demand and low global cereal stocks. Within this context, setting intervention levels to zero for other feed grains in the same time frame as the maize reform would allow for intervention without having negative implications for the cereals market as a whole. The outlook for the cereals sector also applies for durum wheat, meaning that buying into intervention could be abolished since it has lost its relevance with market prices always significantly above the intervention price. Since intervention for cereals is to be a safety net rather than an element which influences price formation, the differences in harvesting periods across Member States, which effectively start the marketing campaigns, are not longer relevant since the system will no longer provide for prices reflecting intervention levels plus monthly increments. In the interests of simplification the dates for cereals intervention should therefore be harmonised across the Community.

 

(3) In respect of cereals the system should be modified to ensure competitiveness and market orientation for the sector while keeping the role of intervention as a safety net in case of market disruptions and facilitating farmers’ response to market conditions. The Council Conclusions on the reform of the intervention system for maize provided for a review of the whole cereals intervention system in the context of the Health Check, based on an analysis which indicated a certain risk for additional barley intervention if prices were low. The present outlook for cereals has however since changed significantly, and is characterised by a favourable world market price environment driven by expanding world demand and low global cereal stocks. Within this context, setting intervention levels to zero for other feed grains in the same time frame as the maize reform would allow for intervention without having negative implications for the cereals market as a whole. The outlook for the cereals sector also applies for durum wheat, meaning that buying into intervention could be abolished since it has lost its relevance with market prices always significantly above the intervention price. Since intervention for cereals is to be a safety net, intervention should only take place during the last three months of the marketing year.

.

Justification

Opening a few months before the end of the marketing year will serve to prevent speculation whilst retaining the safety-net function of intervention.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) Since the 2003 reform, the competitiveness of the rice sector has increased, with stable production, falling stocks in the view of increasing demand both in the Community and on the world market, with the expected price significantly above the intervention price. Therefore providing for buying into intervention for rice is no longer necessary and so should be abolished.

(4) Since the 2003 reform, the competitiveness of the rice sector has increased, with stable production, falling stocks in the view of increasing demand both in the Community and on the world market, with the expected price significantly above the intervention price. Intervention should nevertheless be retained as a safety net.

Justification

Since a reversal in market trends cannot be ruled out for various reasons, some kind of safety net should be preserved for the rice sector.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) The abolition of intervention for these products may safely be carried out in 2009 since the current market situation and perspectives suggest that intervention would not, in any case, be applicable for them in 2009.

(6) The abolition of intervention for rice and pigmeat may safely be carried out in 2009 since the current market situation and perspectives suggest that intervention would not, in any case, be applicable for them in 2009.

Justification

Abolition of the intervention from 2009 should apply only to pigmeat and rice.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) Constrained by the milk quota ceilings, total Community milk production is projected to follow a gradual, though modest decline over the medium term as continued restructuring in the Member States which were not members of the Community before the 2004 enlargement would lead to a decline in subsistence milk production, while production growth remains limited due to the existence of quotas. At the same time the rate of milk delivered to dairies for processing is foreseen to continue expanding over the projection period. In the light of strong internal and external demand, the milk quota system is hence now restricting production expansion, as opposed to the situation when quotas were introduced as a response to overproduction. In such a market situation, quotas reduce market orientation because they distort farmers response to price signals, and prevent efficiency gains in the sector by slowing down restructuring. They are scheduled to end in 2015, in order to effect the appropriate adjustments by degrees. In this perspective, the phasing-out of dairy quotas by annual increases as provided for in Annex I to this Regulation (of 1% per marketing year from 2009/10 to 2013/14) would allow for a smooth transition by avoiding an excessive adjustment after the end of quotas.

(8) Constrained by the milk quota ceilings, total Community milk production is projected to follow a gradual, though modest decline over the medium term as continued restructuring in the Member States which were not members of the Community before the 2004 enlargement would lead to a decline in subsistence milk production, while production growth remains limited due to the existence of quotas. At the same time the rate of milk delivered to dairies for processing is foreseen to continue expanding over the projection period. An increase in the milk quotas as provided for in Annex I to this Regulation (of 2% for the 2008-2009 marketing year and 1% for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 marketing years) will provide the elements required for a suitable evaluation of the market situation in the milk sector.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8a) With effect from 2009, investment support for milk producers should no longer be limited to the established quota volume so that producers can make investments more specifically geared to market requirements.

Justification

In view of the expected changes to the milk quota regime from 2015, milk producers should be given the opportunity in advance to adapt to the changes and invest in line with the market, particularly as the lead times for applications for investment aid are relatively long.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) Aid for private storage of butter is not widely used. Nevertheless due to the seasonal pattern of milk production in the Community there will always be a seasonal pattern of butter production. Therefore, temporary pressure on the butter market may occur which could be alleviated by seasonal storage. The decision should, however, be taken by the Commission based on sound market analysis rather than an obligation to open the scheme every year and so the scheme should become optional.

deleted

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) Disposal aids for butter for pastry and ice cream and for direct consumption have been reduced in line with the reduction of the intervention price for butter as from 2004 and have consequently been zero before tenders were suspended due to the favourable market situation. Disposal aid schemes are no longer needed to support the market at intervention price level and should therefore be abolished.

(12) Disposal aids for butter for pastry and ice cream and for direct consumption have been reduced in line with the reduction of the intervention price for butter as from 2004 and have consequently been zero before tenders were suspended due to the favourable market situation.

Justification

Since a reversal in market trends cannot be ruled out for various reasons, some kind of safety net should be preserved for butter disposal aids.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) As was the case in the common agricultural policy reform of 2003, to enhance the competitiveness of Community agriculture and to promote more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture, it is necessary to continue the shift from production support to producer support by abolishing the existing aids in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) for dried fodder, flax, hemp and potato starch and integrating support for these products into the system of decoupled income support for each farm. As was the case for the 2003 CAP reform, while decoupling aid paid to farmers will leave the actual amounts paid unchanged, it will significantly increase the effectiveness of the income aid.

(13) As was the case in the common agricultural policy reform of 2003, to enhance the competitiveness of Community agriculture and to promote more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture, it is necessary to continue the shift from production support to producer support by abolishing the existing aids in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation) for flax, hemp and potato starch and integrating support for these products into the system of decoupled income support for each farm. As was the case for the 2003 CAP reform, while decoupling aid paid to farmers will leave the actual amounts paid unchanged, it will significantly increase the effectiveness of the income aid.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) The Council decided in 2000 to phase out the aid for short flax and hemp fibre. This decision was implemented with effect from the 2009/10 marketing year by the amendments made to the single CMO by Regulation (EC) No 247/2008, as was the phasing out of the additional processing aid for processors of flax grown in traditional areas. Aid for long flax fibre should be decoupled. However in order to allow the industry to adapt, half of the shift to the single payment scheme should take place in 2011 and the remaining part in 2013.

(14) The Council decided in 2000 to phase out the aid for short flax and hemp fibre. This decision was implemented with effect from the 2009/10 marketing year by the amendments made to the single CMO by Regulation (EC) No 247/2008, as was the phasing out of the additional processing aid for processors of flax grown in traditional areas. Aid for long flax fibre should be decoupled. However in order to allow the industry to adapt, the shift to the single payment scheme should take place at the latest by 2013.

Justification

In its resolution of 12 March, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament proposed a longer transition period up to 2013, and its guidelines should incorporated here.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) The dried fodder regime was reformed in 2003, when part of the aid was given to producers and decoupled. In the context of the overall orientation of the Health Check towards more market orientation, and the present outlook in feed markets, the transition to full decoupling for the entire sector should therefore be completed by decoupling the remaining aid to the industry.

(15) The dried fodder regime was reformed in 2003, when part of the aid was given to producers and decoupled. In the context of the overall orientation of the Health Check towards more market orientation, and the present outlook in feed markets, the transition to full decoupling for the entire sector should therefore be completed, by 2013 at the latest, by decoupling the remaining aid to the industry.

It should be possible to mitigate the effects of ending the payment of aid to processors by appropriate adjustments in the price paid to producers of the raw materials, who will themselves be receiving increased direct aid entitlements as a result of decoupling. The ending of the aid to processors is also justified in the light of the market situation and perspectives for protein crops as a whole. Given the fact that the sector has already been restructuring since the 2003 reform and the particular negative environmental impact that the production of dehydrated fodder has recently been found to generate, the aid should be decoupled although a short transitional period of two years should be provided for to allow the sector to adjust.

 

Justification

The dried fodder sector also needs a longer transition period, with some decoupling.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Developments in domestic and international cereal and starch markets render the starch production refund no longer pertinent with respect to its initial objectives, and should therefore be abolished. The market situation and perspectives are such that the aid has been set at zero for some time and this would be expected to continue, so that rapid abolition may be effected without negative effects for the sector.

deleted

Justification

The production refund scheme must not just be maintained: the Commission should also be asked to put forward proposals for improving its operating arrangements.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) The provisions on exceptional market support measures related to animal diseases are to be dealt with in a horizontal provision on risk management, and so should be deleted from Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

deleted

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Producer organisations can serve a useful role in grouping supply in sectors where there is an imbalance in concentration of producers and purchasers. Member States should therefore be able to recognise producer organisations in all sectors.

 

(19) While crop insurance or mutual funds can contribute to corrective risk management, this can be very costly in economic and social terms. Parallel efforts should therefore be made to develop preventive risk management instruments. Producer organisations and interbranch organisations can serve an important role in this preventive risk management, particularly by grouping supply in sectors where there is an imbalance in concentration of producers and purchasers or by improving knowledge of the markets. Member States should therefore be able to recognise producer organisations and professional organisations in all sectors.

Justification

Prevention must become a priority objective in crisis management, since an approach geared purely to dealing with risks after they have occurred can be extremely costly in both economic and employment terms.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 2

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 10

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) Article 10 is amended as follows:

deleted

(a) Paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

 

(i) point (a) is replaced by the following:

 

(a) common wheat, barley, maize and sorghum;

 

(ii) point (b) is deleted).

 

(b) Paragraph 2 is deleted.

 

Justification

The cereals and rice intervention should not be changed but maintained as a safety net.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Part II – Title I – Chapter I – Section II – Subsection II – Article 11 – point a

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) for cereals, from 1 November to 31 May;

(a) for cereals, from 1 March to 31 May;

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Part II – Title I – Chapter I – Section II – Subsection II – Article 11 – point (d a) (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(da) for pigmeat, throughout any marketing year.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Part II – Title I – Chapter I – Section II – Subsection II – Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba) shall be opened for pigmeat by the Commission, without the assistance of the Committee referred to in Article 195(1), if the average market price for the meat of pig carcasses over a representative period, as established by reference to the prices recorded in each Member State on the representative markets of the Community and weighted by means of coefficients reflecting the relative size of the pig herd in each Member State, is, and is likely to remain, at less than 103 % of the reference price.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 3

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Part II – Title I – Chapter I – Section II – Sub-section II – Article 12 – paragraph 2

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Public intervention for common wheat may be suspended by the Commission, without the assistance of the Committee referred to in Article 195(1), if the price for wheat with a minimum protein content of 11 % ‘Rouen delivered’ is higher than the reference price.

2. Public intervention for common wheat may be suspended by the Commission if the price for wheat with a minimum protein content of 11 % ‘Rouen delivered’ is higher than the reference price.

It shall be reopened by the Commission, without the assistance of the Committee referred to in Article 195(1), if the conditions provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph no longer apply.

It shall be reopened by the Commission, if the conditions provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph no longer apply.

Justification

The Commission gives no justification for withdrawing this power from the Management Committee, on which the Member States’ sectoral experts confer.

Amendment  19

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 5

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Part II – Title I – Chapter I – Section III – Sub-section I

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) Subsection I of Section III of Chapter I of Title I of Part II is deleted.

deleted

Justification

Butter is the most sensitive surplus product, and the one on which the maintenance of intervention tools is the most important. So there is a need to improve the Commission proposal by maintaining the compulsory nature of private storage aid, and butter disposal aids, while accepting simplification of these schemes as they are extremely complicated to manage.

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 6

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 31

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) Article 31 is amended as follows:

deleted

(a) Paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

 

(i) after point (c) the following points are inserted:

 

(ca) unsalted butter produced from cream or milk in an approved undertaking of the Community of a minimum butterfat content, by weight, of 82%, a maximum milk solids non-fat content, by weight, of 2%, and a maximum water content, by weight, of 16%;

 

(cb) salted butter produced from cream or milk in an approved undertaking of the Community of a minimum butterfat content, by weight, of 80 %, a maximum milk solids non-fat content, by weight, of 2%, a maximum water content, by weight, of 16 % and a maximum salt content, by weight, of 2%;

 

Justification

An earlier amendment maintains compulsory storage aids. So they need not be included in the list of optional aids.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 7

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 34 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The following Article 34a is inserted:

deleted

“Article 34a

 

Conditions of granting for butter

 

1. The Commission may decide to grant aid for private storage for butter in particular if developments in prices and stocks of the products indicate a serious imbalance in the market which could be avoided or reduced by means of seasonal storage.

 

2. The amount of aid shall be fixed by the Commission taking account of storage costs and the likely development in butter prices.”

 

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 8

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 36

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) Article 36 is deleted.

deleted

Justification

We need to maintain Article 36 of Regulation No 1234/2007 granting private storage aid for cheese as price and stock trends for cheeses covered by Article 31(1)(e) show signs of a serious market imbalance, which could be reduced or smoothed out by seasonal storage. Such a measure is a competitive instrument for businesses and encourages the improvement of product quality.

Amendment  23

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 11

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 44

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) Article 44 is deleted.

deleted

Justification

This provision has proved effective in devastating crisis situations, such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001. Nevertheless, the Commission is seeking to delete it and justifies this deletion by introducing a mutual fund in the event of animal or plant diseases. Now this would be a complementary but not an identical measure. At a time when new and virulent animal diseases are appearing, such as bluetongue, Article 44 should be maintained as a precautionary measure.

Amendment  24

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 12 – point a

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 46 – paragraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) Paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

deleted

1. For the exceptional support measures referred to in Article 45, the Community shall provide part-financing equivalent to 50% of the expenditure borne by Member States.

 

Amendment  25

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 14 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 66 – paragraph 5 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14a) In Article 66 the following paragraph shall be added:

 

5a. Member States may apply for temporary quota increases based on underutilisation of milk quota in other Member States, on the condition that they can prove that their dairy market is not likely to enjoy a soft landing under the basic rules. To this end the Commission shall calculate every year the underutilisation of milk quotas. The Commission shall assess potential applications by Member States for extra quota increases and present a proposal for the temporary handing out of production quota at the beginning of each marketing year. These temporary quotas in a given marketing year shall always remain below the level of underutilisation of quota in the marketing year before the given marketing year. The Commission may be assisted by the Committee referred to in Article 195(1).

Amendment  26

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 14 b (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 78 – paragraph 3 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14a) In Article 78 the following paragraph 3a is inserted:

 

3a. All the revenue deriving from the payment of the additional levy to the Union and the appropriations saved from the agricultural budget should be paid into the milk fund so that flanking measures can be implemented in the milk sector.

 

Pursuant to Article 68 [general rules] of Regulation (EC) No […]/2008 [new regulation on direct payments], supported measures may not be funded under this system.

Justification

The milk sector is a sensitive industry. Funds saved in the farm budget and specifically in the milk sector should be used to support and restructure that sector.

Amendment  27

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 17

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section I – Subsection I

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

17. Subsection I of Section I of Chapter IV of Title I of Part II is deleted.

deleted

Justification

For the reasons already given for the amendments to Regulation No 1782/2003, there are no grounds for abolishing these aid measures.

Amendment  28

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 18 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 91 – paragraph 1 – second indent

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

18a. In Article 91(1), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

 

During the marketing years 2009/10 to 2012/13 aid shall also be granted under the same conditions for processing the straw of short flax and hemp grown for fibre.

Amendment  29

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 19

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 92 – paragraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

“1. The amount of processing aid provided for in Article 91 shall be fixed for long flax fibre:

“1. The amount of processing aid provided for in Article 91 shall be fixed:

(a) EUR 200 for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 marketing years; and

(a) for long flax fibre: EUR 160 for the 2009/10 to 2012/13 marketing years;

(b) EUR 100 for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 marketing years;”

(b) for short flax fibre and hemp fibre containing not more than 7.5% impurities and shives: EUR 90 per tonne for the 2009/10 to 2012/13 marketing years.

 

However, the Member State may, with reference to traditional outlets, also decide to grant aid:

 

(a) for short flax fibre containing a percentage of impurities and shives of between 7.5% and 15%;

 

(b) for hemp fibre containing a percentage of impurities and shives of between 7.5% and 25%.

 

In the cases provided for in the second subparagraph, the Member State shall grant the aid in respect of a quantity which amounts to not more than the quantity produced, on the basis of 7.5% of impurities and shives.

Amendment  30

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 20 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 94 – paragraph 1 a

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(20a) In Article 94, paragraph 1a is replaced by the following:

 

1a. A maximum guaranteed quantity of 147 265 tonnes for each of the marketing years 2009/10 to 2012/13 shall be established for short flax fibre and hemp fibre in respect of which aid may be granted. That quantity shall be apportioned among certain Member States as national guaranteed quantities in accordance with point A.II. of Annex XI.

Amendment  31

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 20 b (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 94 a

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(20b) Article 94a is replaced by the following:

 

“Article 94a

 

Additional aid

 

During the 2009/10 to 2012/13 marketing years, additional aid shall be granted to the authorised primary processor in respect of areas under flax in zones I and II as described in point A.III. of Annex XI and the straw production of which has been the subject of:

 

(a) a sale/purchase contract or a commitment as referred to in Article 91(1); and

 

(b) aid for processing into long fibre.

 

The amount of additional aid shall be EUR 120 per hectare in zone I and EUR 50 per hectare in zone II.

Amendment  32

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 21

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Part II – Title I – Chapter IV – Section I – Sub-section III – Article 95 a – paragraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. A premium of EUR 22,25 per tonne of starch produced shall be paid for the 2009/10 and 2010/11 marketing years to undertakings producing potato starch for the quantity of potato starch up to the quota limit referred to in Article 84a(2), provided that they have paid to potato producers a minimum price for all the potatoes necessary to produce starch up to that quota limit.

1. A premium of EUR 22,25 per tonne of starch produced shall be paid for the 2009/10 to 2012/2013 marketing years to undertakings producing potato starch for the quantity of potato starch up to the quota limit referred to in Article 84a(2), provided that they have paid to potato producers a minimum price for all the potatoes necessary to produce starch up to that quota limit.

Justification

Actuellement, un régime de contingentement prévoit une quantité maximale de fécule par pays ensuite répartie par féculerie (sous-contingentement) (règlement (CE) 1868/94, article 8). Le régime d’aide à la transformation de fécule de pommes de terre a été prorogé en juin 2007 (règlement (CE) 671/2007 pour les campagnes 2007/2008 et 2008/2009.

Cette production est génératrice de nombreux emplois industriels, très localisés, et dont la disparition aurait des conséquences importantes au niveau local. C’est pourquoi, il semble plus approprié de maintenir un statu quo sur ce régime de soutien jusqu’en 2013, tout en maintenant le contingentement et le prix minimum jusqu’en 2013 (demandé par les producteurs et féculiers des principaux pays producteurs).

Amendment  33

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 22

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 96

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) Article 96 is deleted.

deleted

Justification

Starch production refunds form an integral part of regulation of the potato starch sector. They are calculated by reference to world rates and are currently at zero. So maintaining this tool, which is needed for the competitiveness of European processing industries, does not involve an additional budgetary constraint and allows us to respond to market situations unfavourable to businesses.

Amendment  34

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 24

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 101

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) Article 101 is deleted.

(24) Article 101 is replaced by the following:

 

Article 101

 

Aid for the purchase of cream, butter and concentrated butter at reduced prices

 

Under conditions to be determined by the Commission, when surpluses of milk products build up or are likely to occur, the Commission may decide that aid shall be granted to enable cream, butter and concentrated butter to be purchased at reduced prices by

 

(a) manufactures of pastry products and ice-cream;

 

(b) manufacturers of other foodstuffs to be determined by the Commission.

Amendment  35

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 29 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 122 – paragraph 1 b (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

29a. The following paragraph is added to Article 122:

 

Member States may also recognise as producer organisations applicant groups within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 1, of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs1. In this case the provisions of point (c)(i) of the first paragraph shall apply.

 

_________

1 OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

Justification

This proposal aims to enable groups applying for geographical indications to be recognised as producer organisations within the meaning of Article 122 of the single CMO, but also and more especially to benefit from the provisions of point (c)(i) paragraph 1 in Article 122, namely the option of safeguarding the programming of production and adjusting it to meet demand, particularly in terms of quality and quantity.

Amendment  36

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 30

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 124 – paragraph 1

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

“1. Article 122 and the first paragraph of Article 123 shall apply without prejudice to the recognition, decided by Member States on the basis of national law and in compliance with Community law, of producer organisations or interbranch organisations respectively, in any sector referred to in Article 1 except for the sectors referred to in Article 122 and the first paragraph of Article 123.”

“1. Article 122 and the first paragraph of Article 123 shall apply without prejudice to the recognition, decided by Member States on the basis of national law and in compliance with Community law, of producer organisations or interbranch organisations respectively, in any sector referred to in Article 1 except for the sectors referred to in Article 122 and the first paragraph of Article 123.

 

These interbranch organisations may act to promote, inter alia, preventive risk management, research and development, information on, and promotion of, products and branches, market analysis and information, and measures of contractualisation.

Justification

As Article 124 of the single CMO sets out the option for Member States to recognise inter-branch organisations in all sectors, it would seem necessary, particularly in the interest of completeness, to list the traditional areas of action of such bodies.

Amendment  37

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 30 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 162 - paragraph 1 – point a – point i

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(30a) In Article 162(1)(a), point (i) is deleted.*

 

* The articles and annexes of Regulation No 1234/2007 must be adapted as a result.

Justification

EU export refunds have always provoked strong criticism from developing countries. Given the current economic situation, it seems a good moment to abolish them now for cereals and for rice, all the more so since the Commission has already planned, in the framework of the Doha talks, to propose abolishing these export refunds.

Amendment  38

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 30 b (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 162 - paragraph 1 – point a – point ii

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

..

(30b) In Article 162(1)(a), point (ii) is deleted.*

 

* The articles and annexes of Regulation No 1234/2007 must be adapted as a result.

Justification

EU export refunds have always provoked strong criticism from developing countries. Given the current economic situation, it seems a good moment to abolish them now for cereals and for rice, all the more so since the Commission has already planned, in the framework of the Doha talks, to propose abolishing these export refunds.

Amendment  39

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 31 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 182 – paragraph 3

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31a) Article 182(3) is replaced by the following text:

 

3. Member States which reduce their sugar quota by more than 50 % of the sugar quota laid down on 20 February 2006 in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 may grant temporary state aid up to the 2013/2014 marketing year.

 

Depending on the application by the Member States concerned the Commission shall take a decision on the total amount of state aid available for such a measure.

 

In the case of Italy the temporary aid referred to in the first sub-paragraph shall not exceed a total of EUR 11 per marketing year and per tonne of sugar beet, to be allocated to sugar-beet growers and to the transport of sugar beet.

 

Finland may grant sugar-beet growers up to EUR 350 per hectare and per marketing year.

 

Within thirty days of the end of each marketing year the Member States concerned shall inform the Commission of the amount of state aid actually granted in the course of that year.

Justification

There is a need to extend until 2013/14 the current Community aid scheme for producers of sugar-beet and sugar-cane, for those Member States that have granted restructuring aid under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 for at least 50 % of the sugar quota laid down on 20 February 2006 in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, without the upper limit of five years, to deal with the needs for adjustment following restructuring.

Amendment  40

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 4 – point 32

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

Article 184

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

“(5) before 30 June 2011 to the European Parliament and Council on the conditions for smoothly phasing out the milk quota system, including, in particular, possible further increases in quotas or possible reductions in the superlevy.”

“(5) before 31 December 2010 to the European Parliament and Council on the state of the milk market. The report shall also analyse the effectiveness of the Member States management systems in relation to the liberalisation of the quota scheme. Where appropriate the report shall be accompanied by suitable proposals.”

Amendment  41

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Annex I

Text proposed by the Commission

Member State

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

Belgium

3 427 288,740

3 461 561,627

3 496 177,244

3 531 139,016

3 566 450,406

3 602 114,910

3 602 114,910

Bulgaria

998 580,000

1 008 565,800

1 018 651,458

1 028 837,973

1 039 126,352

1 049 517,616

1 049 517,616

Czech Republic

2 792 689,620

2 820 616,516

2 848 822,681

2 877 310,908

2 906 084,017

2 935 144,857

2 935 144,857

Denmark

4 612 619,520

4 658 745,715

4 705 333,172

4 752 386,504

4 799 910,369

4 847 909,473

4 847 909,473

Germany

28 847 420,391

29 135 894,595

29 427 253,541

29 721 526,076

30 018 741,337

30 318 928,750

30 318 928,750

Estonia

659 295,360

665 888,314

672 547,197

679 272,669

686 065,395

692 926,049

692 926,049

Ireland

5 503 679,280

5 558 716,073

5 614 303,234

5 670 446,266

5 727 150,729

5 784 422,236

5 784 422,236

Greece

836 923,260

845 292,493

853 745,418

862 282,872

870 905,700

879 614,757

879 614,757

Spain

6 239 289,000

6 301 681,890

6 364 698,709

6 428 345,696

6 492 629,153

6 557 555,445

6 557 555,445

France

25 091 321,700

25 342 234,917

25 595 657,266

25 851 613,839

26 110 129,977

26 371 231,277

26 371 231,277

Italy

10 740 661,200

10 848 067,812

10 956 548,490

11 066 113,975

11 176 775,115

11 288 542,866

11 288 542,866

Cyprus

148 104,000

149 585,040

151 080,890

152 591,699

154 117,616

155 658,792

155 658,792

Latvia

743 220,960

750 653,170

758 159,701

765 741,298

773 398,711

781 132,698

781 132,698

Lithuania

1 738 935,780

1 756 325,138

1 773 888,389

1 791 627,273

1 809 543,546

1 827 638,981

1 827 638,981

Luxembourg

278 545,680

281 331,137

284 144,448

286 985,893

289 855,752

292 754,310

292 754,310

Hungary

2 029 861,200

2 050 159,812

2 070 661,410

2 091 368,024

2 112 281,704

2 133 404,521

2 133 404,521

Malta

49 671,960

50 168,680

50 670,366

51 177,070

51 688,841

52 205,729

52 205,729

Netherlands

11 465 630,280

11 580 286,583

11 696 089,449

11 813 050,343

11 931 180,847

12 050 492,655

12 050 492,655

Austria

2 847 478,469

2 875 953,254

2 904 712,786

2 933 759,914

2 963 097,513

2 992 728,488

2 992 728,488

Poland

9 567 745,860

9 663 423,319

9 760 057,552

9 857 658,127

9 956 234,709

10 055 797,056

10 055 797,056

Portugal

1 987 521,000

2 007 396,210

2 027 470,172

2 047 744,874

2 068 222,323

2 088 904,546

2 088 904,546

Romania

3 118 140,000

3 149 321,400

3 180 814,614

3 212 622,760

3 244 748,988

3 277 196,478

3 277 196,478

Slovenia

588 170,760

594 052,468

599 992,992

605 992,922

612 052,851

618 173,380

618 173,380

Slovakia

1 061 603,760

1 072 219,798

1 082 941,996

1 093 771,416

1 104 709,130

1 115 756,221

1 115 756,221

Finland

2 491 930,710

2 516 850,017

2 542 018,517

2 567 438,702

2 593 113,089

2 619 044,220

2 619 044,220

Sweden

3 419 595,900

3 453 791,859

3 488 329,778

3 523 213,075

3 558 445,206

3 594 029,658

3 594 029,658

United Kingdom

15 125 168,940

15 276 420,629

15 429 184,836

15 583 476,684

15 739 311,451

15 896 704,566

15 896 704,566

Amendment by Parliament

Member State

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

Belgium

3 427 288,740

3 461 561,627

3 496 177,244

Bulgaria

998 580,000

1 008 565,800

1 018 651,458

Czech Republic

2 792 689,620

2 820 616,516

2 848 822,681

Denmark

4 612 619,520

4 658 745,715

4 705 333,172

Germany

28 847 420,391

29 135 894,595

29 427 253,541

Estonia

659 295,360

665 888,314

672 547,197

Ireland

5 503 679,280

5 558 716,073

5 614 303,234

Greece

836 923,260

845 292,493

853 745,418

Spain

6 239 289,000

6 301 681,890

6 364 698,709

France

25 091 321,700

25 342 234,917

25 595 657,266

Italy

10 740 661,200

10 848 067,812

10 956 548,490

Cyprus

148 104,000

149 585,040

151 080,890

Latvia

743 220,960

750 653,170

758 159,701

Lithuania

1 738 935,780

1 756 325,138

1 773 888,389

Luxembourg

278 545,680

281 331,137

284 144,448

Hungary

2 029 861,200

2 050 159,812

2 070 661,410

Malta

49 671,960

50 168,680

50 670,366

Netherlands

11 465 630,280

11 580 286,583

11 696 089,449

Austria

2 847 478,469

2 875 953,254

2 904 712,786

Poland

9 567 745,860

9 663 423,319

9 760 057,552

Portugal

1 987 521,000

2 007 396,210

2 027 470,172

Romania

3 118 140,000

3 149 321,400

3 180 814,614

Slovenia

588 170,760

594 052,468

599 992,992

Slovakia

1 061 603,760

1 072 219,798

1 082 941,996

Finland

2 491 930,710

2 516 850,017

2 542 018,517

Sweden

3 419 595,900

3 453 791,859

3 488 329,778

United Kingdom

15 125 168,940

15 276 420,629

15 429 184,836

Justification

Annex I contains the National quotas for milk: quantities (tonnes) per Member State. Annex I is linked to Article 4, point (14) of this Regulation and Articles 55 (1) and 65 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The draftsman proposes, additionally to the already agreed 2 % increase for 2008/09, to support the 1 % increase of milk quota for the marketing years 2009/10 and 2010/11. The draftsman wants to reassess the market situation for the subsequent quota years as the milk market evolves rapidly.


PROCEDURE

Title

Amendment of Regulations (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 3/2008 and (EC) No […]/2008 with a view to modifying the common agricultural policy

References

COM(2008)0306 – C6-0241/2008 – 2008/0104(CNS)

Date of consulting Parliament

16.6.2008

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

AGRI

19.6.2008

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary

ENVI

19.6.2008

 

 

 

Not delivering opinions

       Date of decision

ENVI

25.6.2008

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos

1.4.2008

 

 

Discussed in committee

20.5.2008

27.5.2008

24.6.2008

14.7.2008

 

23.9.2008

7.10.2008

 

 

Date adopted

7.10.2008

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

24

13

5

Members present for the final vote

Vincenzo Aita, Peter Baco, Sergio Berlato, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giovanna Corda, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Konstantinos Droutsas, Constantin Dumitriu, Michl Ebner, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Duarte Freitas, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Bogdan Golik, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Esther Herranz García, Lily Jacobs, Elisabeth Jeggle, Heinz Kindermann, Vincenzo Lavarra, Stéphane Le Foll, Véronique Mathieu, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, James Nicholson, Neil Parish, María Isabel Salinas García, Agnes Schierhuber, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Alyn Smith, Petya Stavreva, László Tőkés, Donato Tommaso Veraldi

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Katerina Batzeli, Esther De Lange, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Markus Pieper, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Vladimír Železný

Date tabled

14.10.2008

Legal notice - Privacy policy