REPORT Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union

4.10.2011 - (COM(2010)0498 – C7‑0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD)) - ***I

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato Adrover

Amendments

• 001-114 (PDF - 329 KB)
• 001-114 (DOC - 364 KB)
• 115-115 (PDF - 333 KB)
• 115-115 (DOC - 204 KB)
• 116-116 (PDF - 89 KB)
• 116-116 (DOC - 160 KB)

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union

(COM(2010)0498 – C7‑0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0498),

–   having regard to Article 294(2), the first subparagraph of Article 42, and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0284/2010),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, of 17 February 2011[1],

–   having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposed legal basis,

–   having regard to Rules 55 and 37 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0321/2011),

1.  Adopts the position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment  1 Proposal for a regulation Citation 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,	Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 42, Article 43(2) and Article 349 thereof,
Justification
Article 349 is the only article in the Treaty under which the outermost regions receive special treatment. Referring only to the Articles on the CAP does not guarantee special treatment for these regions whose economic and social development is severely restrained by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate and economic dependence on a few products.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(4) In order to achieve the objectives of the scheme promoting the Union’s outermost regions more effectively, the POSEI programmes must include measures which ensure the supply of agricultural products and the preservation and development of local agricultural production. The level of programming for the regions concerned needs to be harmonised and the policy of partnership between the Commission and the Member States needs to become more systematic.	(4) In order to achieve the objectives of the scheme promoting the Union’s outermost regions more effectively, the POSEI programmes must include measures which ensure the supply of agricultural products and the preservation and development of high-quality local agricultural production, taking imperatives linked to the fight against climate change into account. The level of programming for the regions concerned needs to be harmonised and the policy of partnership between the Commission and the Member States needs to become more systematic.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4a) In order not to undermine the efforts to achieve the objectives of the POSEI programmes, the Commission should carry out impact assessments or prior evaluations of the possible consequences (using the criteria laid down by the UN) each time an international trade agreement is negotiated which may pose a threat to the sectors supported under the POSEI programmes. Once these impact assessments or prior evaluations have been carried out, the Commission should forward the findings to the European Parliament and the Council.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(6) In order to ensure the supply of essential agricultural products to the outermost regions and to compensate for the additional costs caused by their extreme remoteness, it is appropriate to introduce a specific supply arrangement. In fact, the exceptional geographical situation of the outermost regions imposes additional transport costs in supplying products which are essential for human consumption, for processing or as agricultural inputs. In addition, other objective factors linked to these regions’ extreme remoteness, namely their insularity and small surface areas, lead to further constraints on economic operators and producers in the outermost regions that severely handicap their activities. These handicaps can be alleviated by lowering the price of these essential products.	(6) In order to ensure the supply of essential agricultural products to the outermost regions and to compensate for the additional costs caused by their extreme remoteness, it is appropriate to introduce a specific supply arrangement. In fact, the exceptional geographical situation of the outermost regions imposes additional transport costs in supplying products which are essential for human consumption, for processing or as agricultural inputs. In addition, other objective factors linked to these regions’ extreme remoteness, namely their insularity and small surface areas, lead to further constraints on economic operators and producers in the outermost regions that severely handicap their activities. These handicaps can be alleviated by lowering the price of these essential products. The specific supply arrangement should not, however, under any circumstances damage local products and their development.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(8) In order to achieve in an effective manner the lowering of prices in the outermost regions and mitigating the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, all the while maintaining the competitiveness of EU products, aid should be granted for the supply of Community products to the outermost regions. Such aid should take account of the additional cost of transport to these regions and the cost of exports to third countries and, in the case of agricultural inputs and products intended for processing, the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, specifically insularity and small surface areas.	(8) In order to achieve in an effective manner the lowering of prices in the outermost regions, mitigating the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, aid should be granted for the supply of Community products to the outermost regions. Such aid should take account of the additional cost relating to transport to these regions and the cost of exports to third countries and, in the case of agricultural inputs and products intended for processing, the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, specifically insularity and small surface areas, hilly terrain, difficult climate and scattered islands.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(8a) Support for traditional sectors is all the more necessary because it enables them to remain competitive on the EU market in the face of competition from third countries, bearing in mind that trade agreements posing a threat to these sectors have been signed with Latin American countries and within the WTO. The Member States should, however, also ensure, as far as possible, the diversification of agricultural activities in the outermost regions when they draw up their programmes.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(13) With regard to processed products, trade between the outermost regions should be authorised in order to allow commerce between these regions. Account should also be taken of trade flows within the context of regional commerce and traditional exports and dispatching with the rest of the Union or third countries in the outermost regions, and exports of processed products corresponding to traditional trade for all those regions. For the sake of clarity, the reference period for defining traditionally exported or dispatched quantities should be specified.	(13) With regard to processed products, trade between the outermost regions should be authorised in order to allow commerce between these regions. Account should also be taken of trade flows within the context of regional commerce and traditional exports and dispatching with the rest of the Union or third countries in the outermost regions, and exports of processed products corresponding to traditional trade for all those regions. For the sake of clarity, the reference period for defining traditionally exported or dispatched quantities should be specified. The reference period should not, however, cause exports by the outermost regions to stagnate, so thought should be given to reviewing it in view of the amendment to this Regulation.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(17) Given that rice constitutes a staple of the diet of Réunion, and since the island does not produce sufficient quantities to meet local requirements, the import of this product to the island should continue to be exempt from any form of import tax.	(17) Given that rice constitutes a staple of the diet of Réunion, that rice processing and polishing industries have been established in Réunion for many years and that Réunion does not produce sufficient quantities to meet local requirements, the import of this product to the island should continue to be exempt from any form of import tax.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 19
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(19) In order to support the marketing of products from the outermost regions, aid should be established to assist commercialisation of these products outside of the region in which they are produced.	(19) In order to support the marketing of products from the outermost regions, aid should be established to assist commercialisation of these products outside of the region in which they are produced, taking account of the high additional costs they face as a result of their distance from consumer markets and the need for double storage, which create crucial competitive disadvantages affecting their ability to compete in the internal market. These factors justify the need to increase the financial envelope for the POSEI programmes.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(22) Farmers in the outermost regions should be encouraged to supply high-quality products and to prioritise their marketing. Use of the logo introduced by the Union may be useful to this end.	(22) Farmers in the outermost regions should be encouraged to continue to supply high-quality products and to prioritise their marketing. Use of the logo introduced by the Union may be useful to this end. The use of other forms of quality certification, such as designations of origin and geographical indications, should also be encouraged in order to enhance the status and promote the development of local agricultural products.
Amendment  11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 22 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(22a) Wherever possible, the supply arrangements and measures to assist local production should be geared to high-quality agricultural production and innovative products with added value capable of satisfying demanding markets and market niches.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(23a) Account should also be taken of the additional costs affecting agricultural production in the outermost regions linked to the small size of farmland plots and their scattered nature, including greater use of agricultural diesel not only by traction machinery but also by other vehicles used to transport various items of farm machinery between farms.
Amendment  13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 25
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(25) Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Annex I thereto determine the maximum annual amounts eligible for agri-environmental payments. To take into account the specific environmental situation of certain very sensitive pasture areas in the Azores and the preservation of the landscape and traditional features of agricultural land, in particular the areas of terrace cultivation in Madeira, provision should be made for the possibility, in the case of certain specific measures, of increasing those amounts up to twofold.	(25) Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Annex I thereto determine the maximum annual amounts eligible for agri-environmental payments. To take into account the specific environmental situation of certain very sensitive pasture areas in the Azores and the preservation of the landscape and traditional features of agricultural land, in particular the areas of terrace cultivation in Madeira and the Canary Islands, provision should be made for the possibility, in the case of certain specific measures, of increasing those amounts up to twofold.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 26
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(26) A derogation may be granted from the Commission’s consistent policy of not authorising State operating aid for the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products covered by Annex I to the Treaty, in order to mitigate the specific constraints on farming in the outermost regions linked to their extreme remoteness, specifically their isolation, insularity, small surface areas, mountainous terrain and climate and their economic dependency on a small number of products.	(26) A derogation may be granted from the Commission’s consistent policy of not authorising State operating aid for the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products covered by Annex I to the Treaty, in order to mitigate the specific constraints on farming in the outermost regions linked to their extreme remoteness, specifically their isolation, insularity, small surface areas, mountainous terrain and climate and their economic dependency on a small number of products. Agricultural production plays a vital role in revitalising rural areas and encouraging people to stay in them, and the outermost rural areas are particularly affected by population ageing, low population density and in some cases depopulation.
Amendment  15 Proposal for a regulation Recital 27
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(27) The plant health of agricultural crops in the outermost regions is subject to particular problems associated with the climate and the inadequacy of the control measures hitherto applied there. Programmes should therefore be implemented to combat harmful organisms, including by organic methods. The Union’s financial contribution towards such programmes should be defined.	(27) The plant health of agricultural crops in the outermost regions is subject to particular problems associated with the increase in imports, the climate and the inadequacy of the control measures hitherto applied there. Programmes should therefore be implemented to combat harmful organisms, including by sustainable and environmentally sound organic methods, alongside training programmes. The Union’s financial contribution towards such programmes should be defined.
Amendment  16 Proposal for a regulation Recital 28
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(28) The maintenance of vineyards, which are the most widespread type of cultivation in the regions of Madeira and the Canary Islands and a very important one for the Azores, is an economic and environmental imperative. To help support production, neither the abandonment premiums nor the market mechanisms provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should be applicable in these regions, but nonetheless, in the Canary Islands, it should be possible to apply crisis distillation measures in the event of exceptional market disturbance arising from quality problems. Similarly, technical and socio-economic difficulties have prevented complete conversion, within the time limits established, of the areas in the regions of Madeira and the Azores under vines of hybrid varieties prohibited by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The wine produced by such vineyards is intended solely for traditional local consumption.	(28) The maintenance of vineyards, which are the most widespread type of cultivation in the regions of Madeira and the Canary Islands and a very important one for the Azores, is an economic, social and environmental imperative. To help support production, neither the abandonment premiums nor the market mechanisms provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should be applicable in these regions, but nonetheless, in the Canary Islands, it should be possible to apply crisis distillation measures in the event of exceptional market disturbance arising from quality problems. Similarly, technical and socio-economic difficulties have prevented complete conversion, within the time limits established, of the areas in the regions of Madeira and the Azores under vines of hybrid varieties prohibited by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The wine produced by such vineyards is intended solely for traditional local consumption.
Amendment  17 Proposal for a regulation Recital 29 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(29a) Given the irreplaceable nature of milk production in the Azores, where it is the main driving force for the economy, social stability, the quality of the environment and occupation of the land, the POSEI programmes, whose aim is to adapt the common agricultural policy to the outermost regions, are the best instrument with which to lay down any measures which may be necessary to maintain current levels of production, arising from the production rights allocated. The decision to abolish milk quotas would have an extremely negative impact on the milk and milk product sector. It is, however, justified to increase the financial envelope for the POSEI programmes by the amounts sufficient to cover the measures which may become necessary in order to offset the negative impact of the abolition of this scheme.
Amendment  18 Proposal for a regulation Recital 30
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(30) Support for the production of cow’s milk in Madeira and Réunion has not been sufficient to maintain the balance between domestic and external supply, chiefly because of the serious structural difficulties affecting the sector and its poor capacity to adapt to new economic environments. Consequently, authorisation to produce UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder of EU origin should continue, in order to cover local consumption more fully. In order to inform the consumer correctly, it should be made compulsory to indicate the method by which UHT milk is reconstituted using milk powder on the sales labelling.	(30) Support for the production of cow’s milk in Madeira and Réunion has not been sufficient to maintain the balance between domestic and external supply, chiefly because of the serious structural difficulties affecting the sector and its problems in adapting to new economic environments. Consequently, authorisation to produce UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder of EU origin should continue, in order to cover local consumption more fully, provided that this does not pose an obstacle to the collection and marketing of all locally produced milk, or hamper efforts to promote the expansion of local production, the medium-term aim being to secure, for Réunion, self-sufficiency in milk production. In order to inform the consumer correctly, it should be made compulsory to indicate the method by which UHT milk is reconstituted using milk powder on the sales labelling. This provision should also be applicable in Martinique, French Guiana and Guadeloupe, should France make such a request citing the wish of local stakeholders to be covered by it and their ability to develop the milk sector.
Amendment  19 Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(31a) The trade dynamic among outermost regions should be fostered with a view to meeting local consumption needs. The export of surplus production from each of the outermost regions – for example, the export of milk, beef and young male bovine animals from the Azores – to those regions with shortages should be encouraged with a view to strengthening the trade dynamic, while avoiding harming the growth of local production. The conditions necessary for fair and equitable trade should also be guaranteed, in particular as regards the tax burden on trade.
Amendment  20 Proposal for a regulation Recital 34
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(34) Tobacco growing is of historical importance in the Canary Islands. Economically speaking, tobacco preparation continues to be one of the chief industrial activities in the region. In social terms, tobacco cultivation is very labour-intensive and carried out by small farms. Since the crop is not sufficiently profitable, however, it is in danger of dying out. Tobacco is currently cultivated on only a small area on the island of La Palma, for the small-scale manufacture of cigars. Spain should therefore be authorised to continue to grant aid, in addition to EU aid, so that this traditional crop can be maintained with a view to supporting the artisanal activity associated with it. In addition, to maintain the manufacture of tobacco products, imports into the Canary Islands of raw and semi-manufactured tobacco should continue to be exempt from customs duty, up to an annual limit of 20 000 tonnes of stripped raw tobacco equivalent.	(34) Tobacco growing is of historical importance in the Canary Islands and the Azores. Economically speaking, tobacco preparation continues to be one of the chief industrial activities in the region. In social terms, tobacco cultivation is very labour-intensive and carried out by small farms, which, in the case of the Azores, makes crop rotation possible, thereby preventing monoculture and the excessive use of fertilisers. Since the crop is not sufficiently profitable, however, it is in danger of dying out. Tobacco is currently cultivated on only a small area on the island of La Palma in the Canary Islands, for the small-scale manufacture of cigars, and on the island of São Miguel in the Azores, for the production of cigars and cigarillos. Spain and Portugal should therefore be authorised to continue to grant aid, in addition to EU aid, so that this traditional crop can be maintained with a view to supporting the artisanal activity associated with it. In addition, to maintain the manufacture of tobacco products, imports into the Canary Islands and the Azores of raw and semi-manufactured tobacco should continue to be exempt from customs duty, up to an annual limit of 20 000 tonnes of stripped raw tobacco equivalent.
Amendment  21 Proposal for a regulation Recital 34 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(34a) The Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the impact that any new tariff concessions in respect of imports of bananas into the European Union will have on producers’ incomes. That report should be accompanied, where necessary, by a legislative proposal concerning the adjustment of the sums laid down in this Regulation with the aim of offsetting the losses of income suffered by European producers.
Amendment  22 Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(35) Implementation of this Regulation must not jeopardise the level of special support from which the outermost regions have benefited up to now. For that reason, so that they can implement the appropriate measures, the Member States should have at their disposal sums equivalent to the support already granted by the Community under Regulation (EC) No 247/2006.	(35) In order to ensure that the objectives of this Regulation, in particular the safeguarding and development of agricultural activities in the outermost regions, are met, the sums equivalent to the support already granted by the Union to these regions under Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 should be reviewed.
Justification
The current support does not take into account certain, mainly external, factors that condition the development of agricultural activity in the outermost regions.
Amendment  23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 35 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(35a) Successive reductions in the single tariff set for banana imports pose periodic threats to the profitability of banana production in the outermost regions. There is therefore an ongoing need to assess the impact of tariff concessions granted by the European Union in order to determine whether the aid granted to EU producers should be reviewed.
Amendment  24 Proposal for a regulation Recital 35 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(35b) So that the objectives of this Regulation can be fulfilled, it should be possible for the POSEI programmes to offset any negative repercussions of agricultural reforms, and for the changes granted under the new CAP to be applied to the outermost regions selectively and progressively, taking account of their specific characteristics.
Amendment  25 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(36) Since 2006, requirements in essential products have increased in some outermost regions, particularly in the Azores and in the French overseas departments, as a result of the increasing livestock population and demographic pressure. The proportion of the budget which Member States may use for the specific supply arrangements for the regions concerned should therefore be increased.	(36) Since 2006, requirements in essential products have increased in some outermost regions, particularly in the Azores and in the French overseas departments, as a result of the increasing livestock population and demographic pressure. There should therefore be an effective increase in the financial envelope for the specific supply arrangements, in order to avoid compromising current support which is indispensable for local production, the main objective of the POSEI programmes.
Amendment  26 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(36a) To ensure that the specific aid granted by this Regulation to the outermost regions remains unaffected, the Commission should improve coordination between the Union’s common policies and the other sector-specific policies. Such policy coordination could take the form of impact assessments, for example.
Justification
The sector-specific policies (regional, development and research policies) should be coordinated with the POSEI measures, trade policy and the agriculture or fisheries policies. Accordingly, where trade agreements are likely to have adverse effects on the outermost regions they must be subjected to specific impact assessments.
Amendment  27 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(36b) Once the territory of Mayotte has acquired outermost region status, the Commission should put forward a new proposal that seeks to increase proportionally the budget earmarked for the overseas departments, that takes account of Mayotte’s new status, and that incorporates specific provisions concerning Mayotte.
Amendment  28 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(36c) As the last POSEI support Regulation, namely Regulation (EC) No 247/2006, was adopted in the light of the agreed WTO European market access tariff of EUR 176 per tonne, consequently the tariff laid down in the WTO agreements on trade in bananas and the further reductions granted in trade agreements with the Andean countries and the countries of Central America were not taken into account in the POSEI financial envelope; therefore a new updated, comprehensive and external impact assessment should be completed at an early stage and, if it shows adverse effects on EU banana producers, the financial resources available under the POSEI programmes should be modified in order to introduce appropriate compensation and measures to increase the competitiveness of banana producers in the outermost regions of the Union.
Amendment  29 Proposal for a regulation Recital 37
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(37) The Commission should therefore be able to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty, in order to supplement or modify certain non-essential elements of the present Regulation. The areas with regard to which this ability can be exercised, and the conditions to which this delegation should be subject should be set out.	(37) In order to ensure the proper functioning of the regime established by this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission to enable it to supplement or modify certain non-essential elements of the present Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.
Amendment  30 Proposal for a regulation Recital 38
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(38) In order to ensure that the POSEI programme is implemented in the Member States in a uniform manner and to avoid unfair competition or discrimination between operators, the Commission should be able to adopt implementing acts in accordance with Article 291(2) of the Treaty. The Commission should therefore be granted implementing powers under that provision, specifically vis-à-vis the uniform conditions under which products affected by the special supply arrangements enter, leave and move within the outermost regions, the uniform conditions for implementing programmes and the minimum characteristics for checks which Member States must apply.	(38) In order to ensure that the POSEI programme is implemented in the Member States in a uniform manner and to avoid unfair competition or discrimination between operators, the Commission should be granted implementing powers, specifically vis-à-vis the uniform conditions under which products affected by the special supply arrangements enter, leave and move within the outermost regions, the uniform conditions for implementing programmes and the minimum characteristics for checks which Member States must apply. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers1.
	_______________
	1 OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
Amendment  31 Proposal for a regulation Recital 39
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(39) [Recital concerning control of implementing measures. To be completed following the adoption of the regulation on control mechanisms, as referred to in Article 291(2) of the TFEU, currently the subject of discussion by the European Parliament and the Council],	deleted
Amendment  32 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
a) guaranteed supply to the outermost regions of products essential for human consumption or for processing and as agricultural inputs by mitigating the additional costs due to extreme remoteness;	a) guaranteed supply to the outermost regions of products essential for human consumption or for processing and as agricultural inputs by mitigating the additional costs due to extreme remoteness, without harming local production and the growth thereof;
Amendment  33 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
b) preservation and development of agricultural activities in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and the sale of local products.	b) securing the long-term future and development of the so-called livestock and crop diversification sectors in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and the sale of local products, while at the same time significantly improving the local population’s degree of self-sufficiency by increasing domestic production and reducing imports, in particular on account of the higher transport-related costs;
Amendment  34 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	ba) maintaining the development and strengthening the competitiveness of traditional agricultural activities in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and marketing of local crops and products, whilst ensuring that the revenue generated by the products and by-products of traditional agricultural sectors is shared fairly between producers, processors and distributors;
Amendment  35 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	bb) fostering research and innovation, in particular with a view to developing sustainable, high value-added agricultural production.
Amendment  36 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. The objectives set out in paragraph 1 must be achieved by taking a holistic approach to sustainable development which seeks both to safeguard the environment and to guarantee producers and farmers a decent income. This must also involve measures to provide farmers and processors with ongoing training in order to foster the development of high-quality, productive and sustainable agricultural sectors.
Amendment  37 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
b) specific measures to assist local agricultural production as provided for in Chapter IV.	b) specific measures to assist local agricultural production, as referred to in Chapter IV and in accordance with the objectives set out in Article 2.
Amendment  38 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Measures taken under POSEI programmes must comply with European Union law and be consistent with other EU policies and with the measures taken under such policies.	1. Measures taken under POSEI programmes must comply with European Union law and be consistent with other EU policies and with the measures taken under such policies, without prejudice to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which grants the outermost regions special status with a view to fostering their development and their integration on a fair basis into the Union through the implementation of specific programmes and instruments tailored to their situation.
Amendment  39 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Consistency of the measures taken under POSEI programmes with measures implemented under other instruments of the common agricultural policy, and in particular the common organisations of markets, rural development, product quality, animal welfare and protection of the environment, must be ensured.	2. Consistency of the measures taken under POSEI programmes with measures implemented under other instruments of the common agricultural policy, and in particular the common organisations of markets, rural development, product quality, animal welfare and protection of the environment and of trade policy must be ensured.
Amendment  40 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – point d a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	da) the establishment of regional monitoring committees to assess the effectiveness and level of implementation of each measure, through official, timetabled consultation of stakeholders.
Amendment  41 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Member States shall submit a draft POSEI programme to the Commission in the light of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3).	1. The POSEI programmes have been established by Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 and are financed under the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3).
Justification
As there is no need to submit new POSEI programmes, the text proposed by the Commission may give rise to confusion. The amendment seeks to clarify that the programmes introduced following the adoption of Regulation 247/2006 will continue to run.
Amendment  42 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
The draft programme shall comprise a draft forecast supply balance indicating the products, the quantities thereof and the amount of aid for supply from the Union together with a draft programme of support for local production.	Each programme comprises a forecast supply balance indicating the products, the quantities thereof and the amount of aid for supply from the Union together with a programme of support for local production.
Justification
As there is no need to submit new POSEI programmes, the text proposed by the Commission may give rise to confusion. The amendment seeks to clarify that the programmes will continue to run.
Amendment  43 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
The Commission shall evaluate the POSEI programme proposed and decide whether or not to approve it by means of an implementing act.	deleted
Justification
This amendment is consistent with the other amendments to Article 6.
Amendment  44 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Depending on the annual evaluation of the implementation of measures included in the POSEI programmes, the Member States may submit to the Commission proposals for amendments thereto within the context of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3), to bring them more into line with the requirements of the outermost regions and the strategy proposed. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the uniform measures for the submission of proposals for amendments to the programme.	2. Depending on the annual evaluation of the implementation of measures included in the POSEI programmes, the Member States may, after consulting the socioeconomic operators concerned, submit to the Commission proposals for amendments thereto within the context of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3), to bring them more into line with the requirements of the outermost regions and the strategy proposed. The Commission shall assess the amendments proposed and decide on whether to approve them. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the uniform measures for the submission of proposals for amendments to the programme. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Justification
This amendment is consistent with the other amendments to this Article.
Amendment  45 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. In order to take into account the different types of amendments proposed and the time frame within which they must be implemented, the Commission shall determine by delegated act the procedure for approving amendments.	3. In order to take into account the different types of amendments proposed and the time frame within which they must be implemented, the Commission shall determine by delegated act the procedure for approving amendments. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  46 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	The implementing acts provided for under this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  47 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Specific supply arrangements are hereby established for the agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, which are essential in the outermost regions for human consumption, for the manufacture of other products or as agricultural inputs.	1. Specific supply arrangements are hereby established for the agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, which are essential in the outermost regions for human consumption, for the manufacture of other products or as agricultural inputs, always taking account of the principle of administrative simplification for the administrations and above all for the final beneficiaries, without ever jeopardising effectiveness and the corresponding financial resources allocated to the POSEI programmes.
Amendment  48 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3a. Paragraph 3 shall not apply in the case of products processed in French overseas departments from raw materials which have benefited from specific supply arrangements being dispatched between French overseas departments.
Justification
Given the cost of transport between French overseas departments, provision should be made for the possibility of granting aid in addition to the specific supply agreements for cattle feed produced in the French Antilles and shipped to Guyana.
Until such time as an efficient processing system is set up, such aid would enable Guyana to obtain products at prices comparable to those applied in Guadeloupe or Martinique.
A similar form of aid might be considered in future for products produced in Réunion and dispatched to Mayotte.
Amendment  49 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. Only products of sound, fair and marketable quality may benefit from the specific supply arrangements.	4. Only products of sound, fair and marketable quality may benefit from the specific supply arrangements. Products from third countries should comply with the European Union’s veterinary and phytosanitary standards.
Justification
There must be a guarantee that imports from third countries that benefit from the specific supply arrangements meet the same veterinary and phytosanitary standards as apply to European producers in order to prevent unfair competition with local products.
Amendment  50 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
d) where applicable, the need not to obstruct the potential development of local products.	d) the need not to upset the balance of local products and not to obstruct their potential development.
Amendment  51 Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. In order to ensure that operators fully exercise their rights to participate in the specific supply arrangements, the Commission shall determine, by delegated act, the conditions for recording operators in the register and, if necessary, shall make it compulsory to establish a security for the issuing of certificates.	2. In order to ensure that operators fully exercise their rights to participate in the specific supply arrangements, the Commission shall determine, by delegated act, the conditions for recording operators in the register and, if necessary, shall make it compulsory to establish a security for the issuing of certificates. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  52 Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act all measures necessary to ensure the uniform application by the Member States of this Article, specifically relating to the introduction of the system of certificates, not including the establishment of the security certificates, and the commitment of operators at the time of registration.	3. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act all measures necessary to ensure the uniform application by the Member States of this Article, specifically relating to the introduction of the system of certificates, not including the establishment of the security certificates, and the commitment of operators at the time of registration. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  53 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Benefiting from the specific supply arrangements resulting from the exemption of import duty or the awarding of aid shall be subject to the condition that the impact of the economic advantage is passed on up to the end user who, as appropriate, may be the consumer in the case of products meant for direct consumption, the end processor or packager in the case of products meant for the processing or packaging industries, or farmers in the case of products used for animal feed or as agricultural inputs.	1. Benefiting from the specific supply arrangements resulting from the exemption of import duty or the awarding of aid shall be subject to the condition that the impact of the economic advantage is passed on up to the end user who, as appropriate, may be the consumer in the case of products meant for direct consumption, the end processor or packager in the case of products meant for the processing or packaging industries, or farmers in the case of products used for animal feed or as agricultural inputs. The economic advantage passed on up should be demonstrated at each point of trade of the product.
Justification
At each point of trade, the SSA advantage should be passed on by the different operators, including those involved in commercial distribution, when the final user is the consumer.
Amendment  54 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	1a. The Member States shall endeavour to ensure that the economic advantage of the benefits granted under the specific supply arrangements is in fact passed on to the end user, including the application of a more favourable fiscal policy for imported products or for processed products incorporating products imported under these arrangements.
Amendment  55 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. In order to ensure that paragraph 1 above is applied in a uniform manner, the Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act detailed rules for its application and more specifically conditions for governing monitoring by Member States that the advantage has in fact been passed on up to the end user.	2. In order to ensure that paragraph 1 above is applied in a uniform manner, the Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act detailed rules for its application and more specifically conditions for governing monitoring by Member States that the advantage has in fact been passed on up to the end user. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  56 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Products covered by the specific supply arrangements may be exported to third countries or dispatched to the rest of the Union only under uniform conditions established by the Commission by means of an implementing act, which shall include the payment of import duty or the reimbursement of the aid received, as indicated in Article 9.	1. Products covered by the specific supply arrangements may be exported to third countries or dispatched to the rest of the Union only if they comply with the technical arrangements established by the Commission by means of an implementing act, which shall include the payment of import duty or the reimbursement of the aid received, as indicated in Article 9. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Justification
The Commission is given implementing powers in order to have uniform conditions. The wording is therefore ambiguous and, for the sake of clarity, it should be specified what is covered by the Commission’s powers so that it is clear that no additional rights and/or obligations are being created.
Amendment  57 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
a) exported to third countries or dispatched to the rest of the Union within the limits of traditional exports and traditional dispatches. These amounts are established by the Commission by means of an implementing act on the basis of dispatches or export average figures during 1989, 1990 and 1991;	a) exported to third countries or dispatched to the rest of the Union within the established limits of traditional exports and traditional dispatches. These amounts are established by the Commission by means of an implementing act on the basis of dispatches or export average figures, taking as a reference the verified average figures for the three best years since 1989;
Amendment  58 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
b) exported to third countries as part of regional trade in accordance with the destinations and conditions determined by the Commission by means of an implementing act;	b) exported to third countries as part of regional trade;
Amendment  59 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
c) dispatched from the Azores to Madeira or vice versa;	deleted
Amendment  60 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	ca) dispatched between the regions of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.
Amendment  61 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
d) dispatched from Madeira to the Canary Islands or vice versa;	deleted
Amendment  62 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	The implementing acts relating to subparagraph a) shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  63 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. For the purposes of this chapter, ‘regional trade’shall be understood as trade, for each French overseas department, with the Azores and Madeira and the Canary Islands, with third countries established by the Commission by means of an implementing act.	3. For the purposes of this chapter, ‘regional trade’ shall be understood as trade, for each French overseas department, the Azores and Madeira and the Canary Islands, with third countries belonging to the same geographical area as those outermost regions, and with countries with which there are historical trade links. The list of these countries shall be established by the Commission by means of an implementing act, taking into account objective requests made by the Member States following consultation with the sectors concerned. This list could be revised every two years at the request of the Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Justification
The list of countries involved in regional trade with the outermost regions should be revised in accordance with trends in exports by these areas.
Amendment  64 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
6. In order to target the benefit resulting from the application of the specific supply arrangements to regional and traditional trade, the Commission shall establish by means of delegated act, the conditions that processing operations which may give rise to traditional exports or regional trade must comply with.	6. In order to target the benefit resulting from the application of the specific supply arrangements to regional and traditional trade, the Commission shall establish by means of delegated act, the conditions that processing operations which may give rise to traditional exports or regional trade must comply with. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  65 Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to ensure uniform application of this provision, the Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the minimum characteristics of the checks to be carried out by the Member States.	In order to ensure uniform application of this provision, the Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the minimum characteristics of the checks to be carried out by the Member States. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  66 Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to ensure that the operators participating in the scheme comply with their obligations, the Commission shall establish by means of delegated act the conditions necessary for the implementation of the first subparagraph above and the processing of new applications for certificates by the operator.	In order to ensure that the operators participating in the scheme comply with their obligations, the Commission shall establish by means of delegated act the conditions necessary for the implementation of the first subparagraph above and the processing of new applications for certificates by the operator. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  67 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. The POSEI programmes consist of specific measures designed to promote local agricultural production under the scope of Part 3, Title III of the Treaty, necessary in order to ensure the continuity and development of local agricultural production in each outermost region.	1. The POSEI programmes consist of specific measures designed to promote local agricultural production under the scope of Part 3, Title III of the Treaty, necessary in order to ensure the continuity and development of local agricultural production in each outermost region, always taking account of the principle of administrative simplification for the administrations and above all for the final beneficiaries, without ever jeopardising effectiveness and the corresponding financial resources allocated to the POSEI programme.
Amendment  68 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. The part of the programme which includes measures to assist local agricultural production shall comprise at least the following elements:	2. The parts of the programme which include measures to assist local agricultural production and which correspond to the objectives set out in Article 2 shall comprise at least the following elements:
Amendment  69 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
b) a description of the strategy proposed, the priorities selected, its quantified general and operational objectives, and an appraisal showing the expected economic, environmental and social impact, including employment effects;	b) a description of the strategy proposed, the priorities selected, its quantified general and operational objectives, and an appraisal showing the expected economic, environmental and social impact, including employment effects and the effects on the quality of local products;
Amendment  70 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point e
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
e) conditions for the granting of aid, the products and volumes concerned;	deleted
Justification
This provision is superfluous since it deals with matters that are already covered by paragraph 4 of the same article.
Amendment  71 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point f
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
f) the aid amount established for each measure or action in order to achieve one or more objectives for the programme.	f) the aid amount established for each measure and the provisional amount for each action in order to achieve one or more objectives for the programme.
Justification
A high degree of flexibility should continue to be encouraged in the management of POSEI programmes, as has been the case since the adoption of Regulation 247/2006.
Amendment  72 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the uniform conditions for the provision of the aid described in paragraph 2.	3. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the technical arrangements for the provision of the aid described in paragraph 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  73 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
c) individual aid;	c) the unit amount of aid;
Amendment  74 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
d) ceiling.	deleted
Justification
Setting a firm ceiling for each action would constrict the management of programmes.
Amendment  75 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to support the marketing of products outside a region in which they are produced, the Commission shall adopt by means of a delegated act the conditions for establishing the amount of aid awarded in respect of such marketing and, where appropriate, the maximum amounts which form the subject of this aid.	In order to support the marketing of products outside a region in which they are produced, the Commission shall adopt by means of a delegated act the conditions for establishing the amount of aid awarded in respect of such marketing and, where appropriate, the maximum amounts which form the subject of this aid. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  76 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	The Member States may make advance payments for all POSEI actions in support of local production.
Justification
This measure is designed to improve the effectiveness of support for measures to assist local producers in the outermost regions.
Amendment  77 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4a. Once the beneficiaries’ projects have been approved, the Member States may issue an attestation to make it easier for them to obtain prefinancing from a bank.
Amendment  78 Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. In order to improve awareness of high-quality agricultural products from the outermost regions and to increase the consumption thereof, whether processed or non-processed, the Commission shall establish, by means of a delegated act, the conditions for exercising the right to use the logo and for reproducing and using it.	3. In order to improve awareness of high-quality agricultural products from the outermost regions and to increase the consumption thereof, whether processed or non-processed, the Commission shall establish, by means of a delegated act, the conditions for exercising the right to use the logo and for reproducing and using it. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  79 Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. In order to ensure that this Article is applied in a uniform way, the Commission shall adopt, by means of a implementing act, the detailed rules concerning the use of the logo and the minimum characteristics for the checks and monitoring which the Member States shall perform.	4. In order to ensure that this Article is applied in a uniform way, the Commission shall adopt, by means of a implementing act, the detailed rules concerning the use of the logo and the minimum characteristics for the checks and monitoring which the Member States shall perform. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  80 Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Notwithstanding Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the maximum annual amounts eligible for European Union aid, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, may be increased up to twofold in the case of the measure to protect lakes in the Azores and the measure to preserve the landscape and traditional features of agricultural land and the conservation of stone walls supporting terraces in Madeira.	1. Notwithstanding Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the maximum annual amounts eligible for European Union aid, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, may be increased up to twofold in the case of the measure to protect lakes in the Azores and the measure to preserve the landscape, biodiversity and traditional features of agricultural land and the conservation of stone walls in the outermost regions.
Amendment  81 Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3a. To increase the market competitiveness of agricultural products from the outermost regions and improve the ability of agricultural holdings to withstand natural disasters and hazards, steps shall be taken to encourage each subsector as a whole to take out disaster risk insurance, as a consequence of which cooperatives, farmers’ associations and all other agricultural bodies shall be exempted from the ban on receiving state aid to promote access to agricultural insurance cover.
Amendment  82 Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. France and Portugal shall submit programmes to the Commission for the control of organisms harmful to plants or plant products in the French overseas departments and the Azores and Madeira respectively. The programmes shall specify in particular the objectives to be achieved, the measures to be carried out, their duration and their cost. The programmes submitted pursuant to this Article shall not concern the protection of bananas.	1. The Member States shall submit programmes to the Commission for the control of organisms harmful to plants or plant products in the outermost regions. The programmes shall specify in particular the objectives to be achieved, the measures to be carried out, their duration and their cost.
Justification
Programmes for the control of organisms harmful to crop production should be extended to all the outermost regions given the growing proliferation of pests, largely as a consequence of climate conditions and the increase in trade. The scarcity of plant protection substances with which to combat these pests means that boosting such measures is now more necessary than ever. No crop production should be excluded.
Amendment  83 Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. In order to implement these programmes, the Commission shall establish, by means of delegated act, the Union’s financial participation as referred to in paragraph 2, the measures eligible for EU financing and the amount of the aid.	3. In order to implement these programmes, the Commission shall establish, by means of delegated acts, the Union’s financial participation as referred to in paragraph 2, the measures eligible for EU financing and the amount of the aid. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  84 Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Such contribution may cover up to 60% of eligible expenditure in the French overseas departments and up to 75% of eligible expenditure in the Azores and Madeira. Payment shall be made on the basis of documentation provided by the French and Portuguese authorities. If necessary, checks may be organised by the Commission and conducted on its behalf by the experts referred to in Article 21 of Council Directive 2000/29/EC.	Such participation may cover up to 75 % of the eligible expenditure. Payment shall be made on the basis of documentation provided by the Member States. If necessary, checks may be organised by the Commission and conducted on its behalf by the experts referred to in Article 21 of Council Directive 2000/29/EC.
Justification
The number of harmful organisms introduced into the outermost regions has increased in recent years. Many of these organisms are hard to eradicate and have a strong economic impact on the profitability of producers. Climate conditions in many regions favour the propagation of pests, which have increased markedly as a result of the growing circulation of goods.
Amendment  85 Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The measures referred to in Articles 103v, 103w and 103y of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not apply to the Canary Islands.	3. The measures referred to in Articles 85g, 85h, 85i, 85j, 85k, 85m, 103v, 103w and 103y of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not apply to the Canary Islands.
Justification
Vine-growing is a type of agricultural production that promotes the conservation of rural areas on the Canary Islands. The rapporteur wishes to exempt the Canary Islands from any provision restricting the development of production in this sector in the future, bearing in mind the decline seen in recent years. The impact of a derogation from the provisions on illegal vineyards would be virtually nil for the mainland sector, since only 14.7% of wines consumed in the Canary Islands are locally produced.
Amendment  86 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. Notwithstanding Article 114(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the production in Madeira and in the French overseas department of Réunion of UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder originating in the Union shall be authorised within the limits of local consumption requirements, in so far as this measure does not hinder that locally produced milk is collected and finds outlets. This product shall be used for local consumption only.	4. Notwithstanding Article 114(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the production in Madeira and in the French overseas department of Réunion of UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder originating in the Union shall be authorised within the limits of local consumption requirements, in so far as this measure does not hinder that locally produced milk is collected and finds outlets. Should the Member State in question demonstrate the expediency of such a measure for the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe, the Commission shall be empowered, in accordance with Article 33, to adopt the necessary delegated acts in order to extend this measure to the aforementioned departments. This product shall be used for local consumption only.
Amendment  87 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Until the local numbers of young male bovines reach a level sufficient to ensure the maintenance and development of local beef production in the French overseas departments and Madeira, the possibility shall be introduced of importing bovine animals from third countries for fattening and consumption in the French overseas departments and Madeira, without applying import duties under the Common Customs Tariff. The Commission shall adopt, by means of an implementing act, the measures necessary to implement this subparagraph and more specifically the means for introducing the exemption from import duties in respect of the young male bovines introduced into the French overseas departments and Madeira.	1. Until the local numbers of young male bovines reach a level sufficient to ensure the maintenance and development of local beef production in the French overseas departments and Madeira, the possibility shall be introduced of importing bovine animals from third countries for fattening and consumption in the French overseas departments and Madeira, without applying import duties under the Common Customs Tariff. The Commission shall adopt, by means of an implementing act, the measures necessary to implement this subparagraph and more specifically the means for introducing the exemption from import duties in respect of the young male bovines introduced into the French overseas departments and Madeira. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  88 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to take into account the specific local features of the beef sector and industry, the Commission shall establish by means of a delegated act the conditions to which the exemption from import duties is subject.	In order to take into account the specific local features of the beef sector and industry, the Commission shall establish by means of a delegated act the conditions to which the exemption from import duties is subject. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  89 Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. Where Article 52 and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are applied, Portugal may reduce the national ceiling for sheep and goat payment and suckler cow premium rights. In this case, by means of an implementing act by the Commission, the relevant amount shall be transferred from the ceilings established in accordance with Article 52 and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 to the financial allocation referred to in the second indent of Article 29(2) of this Regulation.	3. Where Article 52 and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are applied, Portugal may reduce the national ceiling for sheep and goat payment and suckler cow premium rights. In this case, by means of an implementing act by the Commission, the relevant amount shall be transferred from the ceilings established in accordance with Article 52 and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 to the financial allocation referred to in the second indent of Article 29(2) of this Regulation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  90 Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Spain is authorised to award aid concerning the production of tobacco in the Canary Islands. The granting of this aid may not result in discrimination between producers in the islands.	Spain is authorised to award aid concerning the production of tobacco in the Canary Islands owing to the specific features of this crop and the lack of potential for diversifying local agricultural production. The granting of this aid may not result in discrimination between producers in the islands.
Amendment  91 Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the measures necessary to implement paragraph 1 and more specifically the measures for introducing the exemption from import duties in respect of tobacco in the Canary Islands.	2. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the measures necessary to implement paragraph 1 and more specifically the measures for introducing the exemption from import duties in respect of tobacco in the Canary Islands. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  92 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. The measures provided for in this Regulation, with the exception of Article 21, shall constitute intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/200513.	1. The measures provided for in this Regulation, with the exception of Article 21, shall constitute intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets and guarantee direct payments within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/200513.
Amendment  93 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. In respect of each financial year, the Union shall finance the measures provided for in Chapters III and IV, up to an annual sum equivalent to:	2. In respect of each financial year, the Union shall finance the measures provided for in Chapters III and IV, up to a minimum annual sum equivalent to:
Amendment  94 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 – indent 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– in the Overseas Departments of France: EUR 278.41 million	– in the Overseas Departments of France: EUR 308.21 million
Amendment  95 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– Azores and Madeira: EUR 106.21 million	– Azores and Madeira: EUR 117.61 million
Amendment  96 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 – indent 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– Canary Islands: EUR 268.42 million	– Canary Islands: EUR 297.12 million
Amendment  97 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – indent 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– in the Overseas Departments of France: EUR 24.8 million	– in the Overseas Departments of France: EUR 26.9 million
Justification
The aim of increasing the SSA ceiling for France is to respond to the forecast growth in the livestock farming sector. The increase proposed by the Commission is insufficient measured against the estimates made by the country concerned.
Amendment  98 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
The Commission shall establish by implementing act the uniform conditions under which Member States may amend the allocation of resources allocated each year to the various products benefiting from the specific supply arrangements.	The Commission shall establish by implementing act the uniform conditions under which Member States may amend the allocation of resources allocated each year to the various products benefiting from the specific supply arrangements. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 34(2).
Amendment  99 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3b. The Commission shall ensure that the allocation of aid among the outermost regions of a single Member State does not excessively disadvantage one or more of those regions.
Amendment  100 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. In order to ensure a reasonable and proportional allocation of the finance measures with regard to studies, demonstration projects, training and technical assistance measures, the Commission shall establish by delegated act an annual maximum amount which may be allocated to these measures.	4. In order to ensure a reasonable and proportional allocation of the finance measures with regard to studies, demonstration projects, training and technical assistance measures, the Commission shall establish by delegated act an annual maximum amount which may be allocated to these measures. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt those delegated acts in accordance with Article 33.
Amendment  101 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4a. In view of the adverse effects on European banana producers of a gradual lowering of customs duties on bananas under the multilateral Geneva agreement and the free trade agreements with the Andean countries, Central America and Mercosur, appropriate compensation shall be paid to banana producers in the outermost regions of the Union. This compensation shall be of the order of EUR 30 000 000 per year for all the banana-producing countries in the Union.
Amendment  102 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4b. In future, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the impact that any new tariff concessions for imports of bananas into the European Union will have on producers’ incomes. That report shall be accompanied, where necessary, by a legislative proposal on the adjustment of the sums laid down in paragraph 2 with the aim of offsetting the losses of income suffered by EU producers.
Amendment  103 Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	The Member States may not make aid for supply subject to any type of tax or fiscal levy, whether direct or indirect, and aid should be passed on in its entirety to the end user in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 12.
Amendment  104 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Communications and reports	Communications, reports and impact assessments
Amendment  105 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Member States shall submit to the Commission, not later than 31 July each year, a report on the implementation of the measures provided for in this Regulation over the previous year.	2. Member States shall submit to the Commission, not later than 30 September each year, a report on the implementation of the measures provided for in this Regulation over the previous year.
Justification
Practice has shown that a longer deadline needs to be set for the submission of this report.
Amendment  106 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. Not later than 30 June 2015, and thereafter every five years, the Commission shall submit a general report to the European Parliament and the Council showing the impact of the action taken under this Regulation, including in the banana sector, accompanied if applicable by appropriate proposals.	3. Not later than 30 June 2015, and thereafter every five years, the Commission shall submit a general report to the European Parliament and the Council showing the impact of the action taken under this Regulation, including in the banana and milk sectors, accompanied if applicable by appropriate proposals.
Amendment  107 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3a. The Commission shall carry out specific prior assessments of the impact on agriculture in the outermost regions of bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations with third countries or trade markets and of significant changes agreed with regard to the common agricultural policy; such assessments shall be repeated on a regular basis. The Commission shall apply the criteria laid down by the United Nations when drawing up its reports. Where necessary, these studies or assessments shall be accompanied by proposals for a revision of the financial statement and of support measures for local production in the light of changes arising from the trade negotiations or significant changes to the common agricultural policy.
Amendment  108 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3b. The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the impact on local production in the outermost regions affected by the possible EU-Mercosur agreement. This report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal concerning due compensation for the losses of income suffered by producers in the outermost regions of the Union at any given time.
Amendment  109 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3c. Given the significant impact the dismantling of the milk-quota system can be expected to have on the milk sector in the outermost regions, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the impact of dismantling that system. This report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal concerning due compensation for the losses of income suffered by producers in the outermost regions of the Union at any given time.
Amendment  110 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3 d (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3d. The Commission shall include a specific chapter in the analyses, studies and assessments it carries out in the context of trade agreements and the common agricultural policy for any topic in which the outermost regions have a particular interest.
Amendment  111 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	Article 31a
	Extensions to the list of outermost regions
	Any extension to the list of outermost regions of the EU shall be coupled with increased funding for the POSEI programmes.
Amendment  112 Proposal for a regulation Article 33
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Delegated acts	Exercise of the delegation
1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in this Regulation shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.	1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.
As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall provide simultaneous notification thereof to the European Parliament and to the Council.
2. The delegation of power referred to in paragraph 1 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.	2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 6(3), 11(2), 13(6), 17(2), 18(4), 20(3), 23(3), 26(2) and 29(4) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from ...*. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.
The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall inform the other legislator and the Commission at the latest one month before the final decision is taken, stating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and the reasons for a revocation.
The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
3. The European Parliament and the Council may object to the delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by one month.	3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 6(3), 11(2), 13(6), 17(2), 18(4), 20(3), 23(3), 26(2) and 29(4) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision to revoke in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, or if, before that date, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they have decided not to raise objections, the delegated act shall enter into force at the date stated in its provisions.
If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.
	3a. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it to the European Parliament and to the Council simultaneously.
	3b. The delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 6(3), Article 11(2), Article 13(6), Article 17(2), Article 18(4), Article 20(3), Article 23(3), Article 26(2) and Article 29(4) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by either the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they do not intend to raise any objections. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
	_______________
	* Date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment  113 Proposal for a regulation Article 34
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Implementing acts – committee	Committee
[To be completed following the adoption of the regulation on control mechanisms, as referred to in Article 291(2) of the TFEU, currently the subject of discussion by the European Parliament and the Council].	1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Management Committee for Direct Payments established by Article 144 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003*. That committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011**.
	2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.
	_______________
	OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1.
	OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
Amendment  114 Proposal for a regulation Article 35 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	Should the new Regulation enter into force on 1 January 2012, the Member States shall not be required to submit a new programme by 1 August 2012 for implementation in 2013, as this would complicate the negotiating process with the Commission services. The stability of programmes is beneficial for all stakeholders, since it safeguards the principle of legal certainty and guarantees sound planning with a view to future investment.

• [1]  OJ C 107, 6.4.2011, p. 33.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Background

The programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of the outermost regions (POSEI) was set up in 1991 to provide support for the French overseas departments and was extended the following year to cover the outermost Portuguese and Spanish regions. Nine regions are currently covered by the programme, namely: Guadeloupe, French Guyana, Martinique, Réunion, Saint-Barthélemy and Saint-Martin in France; the Azores and Madeira in Portugal; and the Canary Islands in Spain. A tenth region, the French overseas department of Mayotte, is currently scheduled for inclusion under the scheme.

POSEI measures play a crucial role in supporting and developing farming and the processing industry in these regions. If the POSEI programme did not exist, it would be difficult for these sectors to remain viable, owing to the economic difficulties faced by outermost regions as a result of their geographical location and the limited scope that they have for diversification.

POSEI measures fall into two categories. The first category comprises specific supply arrangements (SSA), which cover the supply to these regions of inputs for the livestock sector, the processing industry and human consumption. These arrangements are subject to an aid ceiling for each Member State, designed to avoid unfair competition with island products. The second POSEI category, which accounts for some 80% of the overall assistance provided under the programme, comprises measures to assist local agricultural products (MLAPs) and plays a vital role in ensuring the continued viability of farming in these regions.

There have been two POSEI reforms. The first was carried out in 2001, when the main change consisted in the introduction of a new method for calculating SSA assistance, moving from a system under which account was taken of the level of EU export refunds to one based on the additional costs stemming from the remoteness, isolation and limited size of outermost regions. The reform also introduced the concept of forecast supply balances.

The second POSEI reform – the most extensive to date – took place in 2006 and represented a U-turn in terms of the development of the measures, with the regional authorities being given full responsibility for their formulation. Since then, Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 has been amended several times, principally to incorporate the changes made as part of the latest reform of the banana support scheme, which was incorporated into the POSEI programme, and the sugar reform. Furthermore, following the CAP Health Check, the budget for direct support measures was transferred to POSEI, which is now the equivalent of the first pillar of the CAP for the outermost regions.

Summary of the Commission proposal

The Commission proposal seeks to recast Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 laying down support measures for the outermost regions. It also seeks to bring the regulation into line with the new provisions on delegated acts and implementing acts introduced under the Lisbon Treaty.

The proposal also seeks to simplify and clarify the regulation, which covers all specific agricultural measures in support of the nine outermost regions referred to above. The Commission is taking advantage of this simplification to make changes to a few provisions, in order to address a number of implementation problems that have been identified over recent years.

The main changes proposed are to:

–  increase by 20% the maximum ceilings established for the SSA in France and Portugal,

–  make the specific supply arrangements subject to the requirement that they should not restrict the development of local production,

– incorporate clarifications on the procedure for submitting programmes and amendments for approval by the Commission, with a view to promoting flexibility and more efficiently adapting programmes to actual needs,

– extend to the French overseas departments the possibility of re-dispatching products processed using raw materials that have benefited from specific supply arrangements without the benefit being reimbursed,

–  include in the programmes the list of aid constituting direct payments, to ensure sound budgetary management.

– The Commission also considers that it would be helpful to indicate how the aid amounts for measures to encourage local agricultural products are defined, given that this was not previously indicated in the basic act.

Rapporteur’s assessment

The profitability of agricultural and industrial production in the outermost regions depends on the POSEI programme, as the authors of the evaluation report on it carried out at the Commission’s request recognise. In periods of crisis like the present, when these regions have unemployment rates that are often higher than the national averages, this programme should not only be maintained, but reinforced as much as possible.

Your rapporteur regrets that the reference to the legal basis of the Treaty specifically for the outermost regions has disappeared from the Commission proposal, and therefore proposes to reintroduce it. Article 349 of the Treaty is the only article devoted to these regions, and guarantees that they will continue to receive special treatment, which in future could be called into question without this reference to the law.

Both the Commission and the Court of Auditors, in its 2010 report on the functioning of the POSEI, note that this programme plays a useful role in mitigating the problems that these regions face.

However, the funding allocated to these programmes (a total of € 653 million for the nine regions) is proving to be insufficient, as is shown by the fact that agriculture is in decline and in view of some decisions taken at national level to increase POSEI support with state aid. Structural problems, and the growing pressure of competition from imports from third countries, are contributory factors in the negative growth in many sectors.

Bananas, which account for a very significant slice of final agricultural output in the outermost regions and especially in the Canary Isles (up to 25 % of total output in that region), will have to contend with the European Union’s tariff concessions to Latin American banana exports. The importance of this sector – one of the islands’ few real exports, along with tomatoes and sugar – would to a large extent justify a revision of the POSEI financial allocations to compensate for the losses the islands’ producers may well suffer as a result of these concessions. But there are other products in the islands besides bananas – tomatoes, sugar and rum for example – that also have to contend with strong external pressures and the European Commission should analyse properly the impact of these pressures. The specific circumstances of these regions accentuates their products’ vulnerability in the face of rising imports from third countries, since alongside costs arising from their remoteness and isolation they also have costs arising from the need to comply with high food safety and environmental standards.

The scarcity of alternatives to the islands’ crops and products is also a weighty argument for adopting measures that are the most appropriate to preventing farmers’ and stock-breeders’ profits deteriorating, bearing in mind in addition the efforts made in recent years to supply high-quality products.

The rapporteur is in favour of the competent authorities continuing to have a wide margin of flexibility in managing programmes since it is at regional level that measures can be adapted most effectively to meet real needs. This flexibility should be guaranteed, as should increased consultation with the sectors concerned.

As regards the two main chapters of the POSEI programmes (SSA and the measures to support the local agricultural production), the rapporteur feels that these should not undergo substantial modifications. However, he urges the Member States to improve programming of support measures for local products as far as is possible, in order to make the aid to the various sectors more effective. Furthermore, Member States should pay particular attention to the possible negative impacts on local products that could arise from inappropriate use of SSA.

In recent years crops in the outermost regions have been affected by the arrival of harmful organisms in large numbers, as a consequence of more trade. Producers are having to tackle a substantial rise in pest numbers, a fact that justifies stepping up phytosanitary programmes and extending them to the Canary Isles and to bananas, while bearing in mind the need to encourage sustainable practices.

The rapporteur is of the opinion that it would furthermore be advisable for the European Union to step up border controls on imports from third countries, whose products should comply with the same veterinary and phytosanitary requirements as those of farmers and stock-breeders from the outermost regions in order to prevent unfair competition with local products.OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS ON THE LEGAL BASIS

Mr Paolo De Castro,

Chair

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

BRUSSELS

Subject:           Opinion on the legal basis of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union [COM(2010)0498]

Dear Mr Chair,

By letter of 8 June 2011 you asked the Committee on Legal Affairs, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure, to consider the addition of a legal basis to the above proposal for a regulation.

The legal bases proposed by the Commission are the first subparagraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) TFEU, both of which fall under Title III on "Agriculture and Fisheries" of Part Three of the TFEU, entitled "Union Policies and Internal Actions".

The legal basis proposed to be added is Article 349 TFEU under Part Seven of the TFEU on "General and Final Provisions", which article sets out the procedure for adopting specific measures aimed, in particular, at laying down the conditions of application of the Treaties to the outermost regions of the Union.

I - Background

With the proposal at hand the Commission has initiated the procedure for a recasting of Regulation (EC) 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union[1] in the interest of clarity and in order to bring it into conformity with the Lisbon Treaty, notably concerning delegated and implementing acts according to Articles 290 and 291 TFEU.

The legal bases for Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 were Articles 36, 37 and 299(2) TEC, which correspond to Articles 42, 43 and 349 TFEU, respectively.

Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 is accompanied by a Commission Regulation[2], adopted on the basis of Article 25 of the basic act, containing detailed rules on its application, which has been amended three times, the last time in 2009.

In their respective opinions on the proposal, the Committee on Regional Development and the European Economic and Social Committee have both recommended the addition of Article 349 TFEU to the legal basis.

II - Relevant Articles of the TFEU

The following Articles are presented as the legal bases in the Commission proposal (the added emphasis indicates the operative provisions):

Article 39

1. The objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be:            

(a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;

(b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;

(c) to stabilise markets;

(d) to assure the availability of supplies;

(e) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

2. In working out the common agricultural policy and the special methods for its application, account shall be taken of:

(a) the particular nature of agricultural activity, which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions;

(b) the need to effect the appropriate adjustments by degrees;

(c) the fact that in the Member States agriculture constitutes a sector closely linked with the economy as a whole.

Article 40

1. In order to attain the objectives set out in Article 39, a common organisation of agricultural markets shall be established.

This organisation shall take one of the following forms, depending on the product concerned:

(a) common rules on competition;

(b) compulsory coordination of the various national market organisations;

(c) a European market organisation.

2. The common organisation established in accordance with paragraph 1 may include all measures required to attain the objectives set out in Article 39, in particular regulation of prices, aids for the production and marketing of the various products, storage and carryover arrangements and common machinery for stabilising imports or exports.

The common organisation shall be limited to pursuit of the objectives set out in Article 39 and shall exclude any discrimination between producers or consumers within the Union.

Any common price policy shall be based on common criteria and uniform methods of calculation.

Article 42

The provisions of the Chapter relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the European Parliament and the Council within the framework of Article 43(2) and in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, account being taken of the objectives set out in Article 39.

The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise the granting of aid:

(a) for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions;

(b) within the framework of economic development programmes.

Article 43

1. The Commission shall submit proposals for working out and implementing the common agricultural policy, including the replacement of the national organisations by one of the forms of common organisation provided for in Article 40(1), and for implementing the measures specified in this Title.

These proposals shall take account of the interdependence of the agricultural matters mentioned in this Title.

2. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall establish the common organisation of agricultural markets provided for in Article 40(1) and the other provisions necessary for the pursuit of the objectives of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.

3. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.

4. In accordance with paragraph 2, the national market organisations may be replaced by the common organisation provided for in Article 40(1) if:

(a) the common organisation offers Member States which are opposed to this measure and which have an organisation of their own for the production in question equivalent safeguards for the employment and standard of living of the producers concerned, account being taken of the adjustments that will be possible and the specialisation that will be needed with the passage of time;

(b) such an organisation ensures conditions for trade within the Union similar to those existing in a national market.

5. If a common organisation for certain raw materials is established before a common organisation exists for the corresponding processed products, such raw materials as are used for processed products intended for export to third countries may be imported from outside the Union.

The following Article is proposed to be added to the legal basis:

Article 349

Taking account of the structural social and economic situation of Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, which is compounded by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, economic dependence on a few products, the permanence and combination of which severely restrain their development, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt specific measures aimed, in particular, at laying down the conditions of application of the Treaties to those regions, including common policies. Where the specific measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament.

The measures referred to in the first paragraph concern in particular areas such as customs and trade policies, fiscal policy, free zones, agriculture and fisheries policies, conditions for supply of raw materials and essential consumer goods, State aids and conditions of access to structural funds and to horizontal Union programmes.

The Council shall adopt the measures referred to in the first paragraph taking into account the special characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions without undermining the integrity and the coherence of the Union legal order, including the internal market and common policies.

III - The proposed legal bases

The first subparagraph of Article 42 TFEU provides that Parliament and the Council are to determine, within the framework of Article 43(2) TFEU, the extent to which competition rules are to apply to the production of and trade in agricultural products. In doing so, they are obligated to take account of the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39.

Article 43(2) TFEU provides the general legal basis for the common agricultural policy, whereby Parliament and the Council are to establish the common organisation of agricultural markets, as set out in Article 40 TFEU, by means of the ordinary legislative procedure.

Article 349 TFEU provides for a legal basis concerning the conditions of application of the Treaties to the outermost regions, including common policies, whereby the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting Parliament, adopts special measures for those regions. According to this article the Council alone adopts measures and the Parliament is merely consulted. It is however important to note that by virtue of Article 16(3) TEU the Council acts by a qualified majority given that Article 349 TFEU does not provide otherwise.

IV - Case-law on legal basis

It is settled case law of the Court of Justice that "the choice of legal basis for a Community measure must rest on objective factors amenable to judicial review, which include in particular the aim and content of the measure"[3]. The choice of an incorrect legal basis may therefore justify the annulment of the act at stake.

With regard to a measure that simultaneously pursues a number of objectives, or that has several components, which are inseparably linked without one being incidental to the other, the Court has held that, where various provisions of the Treaty are therefore applicable, such a measure will have to be founded ion the various corresponding legal bases.[4]

V. Aim and content of the proposed regulation

In the explanatory memorandum of the proposal the Commission specifies that its main purpose is to align Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 with the TFEU.

As concerns delegated acts, under the proposal the Legislator reserves the right to issue decisions concerning the essential elements of a specific scheme for certain agricultural products in the outermost regions, in order to remedy the difficulties caused by their extreme remoteness (the Programmes of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity, POSEI). The general guidelines for this scheme and the general principles which underpin them are determined by the Legislator. In accordance with Article 290 TFEU, the Legislator entrusts the Commission with the task of supplementing or amending certain non‑essential elements. A Commission delegated act may therefore set out additional elements which are necessary for the smooth running of the scheme defined by the Legislator. Under the proposal the Commission may therefore adopt, by means of a delegated act, conditions and measures under the POSEI programmes.

The Member States, in accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are responsible for implementing the scheme defined by the Legislator. According to the Commission it would however appear necessary to ensure that the POSEI programmes are applied in a uniform manner across all Member States in order to avoid unfair competition or discrimination between operators. Under the proposal the Legislator therefore grants the Commission the power to implement, in accordance with Article 291(2) of the Treaty, certain aspects of the programmes.

The first five recitals of the proposal read as follows (emphasis added):

(1) Specific measures in the agricultural sector in order to remedy the difficulties caused by the specific situation facing the European Union’s outermost regions, as referred to in Article 349 of the Treaty, have been established by Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union[5]. These measures have been implemented by means of support programmes for each region, which constitute an essential tool for supplying such regions with agricultural products. In view of the new amendments which have become necessary and following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, it is necessary to repeal Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 and replace it with a new text. 

(2) The fundamental objectives which the scheme promoting the Union’s outermost regions will help to meet, need to be specified.

(3) The content of the Programmes of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (‘POSEI programmes’) which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, must be established by the Member States concerned at the most appropriate geographical level and submitted by the Member States to the Commission for approval, must also be specified.

(4) In order to achieve the objectives of the scheme promoting the Union’s outermost regions more effectively, the POSEI programmes must include measures which ensure the supply of agricultural products and the preservation and development of local agricultural production. The level of programming for the regions concerned needs to be harmonised and the policy of partnership between the Commission and the Member States needs to become more systematic.

(5) In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity and in order to ensure flexibility, two principles which form the basis of the programming approach adopted for the scheme promoting the Union’s outermost regions, the authorities appointed by the Member State may propose amendments to the programme to bring it into line with the reality of the situation in the outermost regions. Also in keeping with this approach, the procedure for amending the programmes must be adapted to reflect the level of relevance of each type of amendment.

Article 2 of the proposal, which has the heading "Objectives", provides that the act seeks to meet the two following objectives (emphasis added):

a) [to guarantee] supply to the outermost regions of products essential for human consumption or for processing and as agricultural inputs by mitigating the additional costs due to extreme remoteness;

b) [to preserve and develop] agricultural activities in the outermost regions, including the production processing and the sale of local products.

In addition to the inclusion of provisions on delegated and implementing acts, the proposal also includes certain minor updating amendments to take account of changes in Union legislation and the practical implementation of the 2006 Regulation.

The draft report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development contains 74 amendments to the text proposed by the Commission, the first of which seeks to introduce Article 349 TFEU as an additional legal basis. Amendment 19 furthermore specifies that this article should be taken into account to grant "

the outermost regions special status with a view to fostering their development and integration on an equal footing with the rest of the Union through specific programmes tailored to their specific situation". The rest of the amendments in the draft report primarily concern technical provisions on delegated and implementing acts.

VI - Determination of the appropriate legal basis

Taking into account that Regulation (EC) No 247/2006, which is to be recast by the proposal, was based in part on the TEC predecessor to Article 349 TFEU, and that the aim and content of the proposal directly concern the scope and content of specific measures for the outermost regions, as well as their implementation, Article 349 TFEU must clearly be included in the legal basis.

Although Article 349 TFEU, unlike Article 43(2) TFEU, does not provide for the application of the ordinary legislative procedure, it provides that the Council is to act by a qualified majority. Consequently, these articles are not procedurally incompatible.

VII - Conclusion and recommendation

In light of the foregoing analysis Article 349 TFEU must be added to the first subparagraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) TFEU to form the legal basis for the proposed regulation.

At its meeting of 11 July 2011, the Committee on Legal Affairs accordingly decided by 21 votes in favour, with no abstention[6], to recommend to you as follows: the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union [COM(2010)0498] should be based on the first subparagraph of Article 42 TFEU, Article 43(2) TFEU and Article 349 TFEU.

Yours sincerely,

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE

• [1]  OJ L 42, 14.2.2006, p. 1.
• [2]  Commission Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 of 12 April 2006 laying down certain detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) 247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (OJ L 145, 31.5.2006, p. 1).
• [3]  Case C-45/86, Commission v. Council (Generalised Tariff Preferences) [1987] ECR 1439, para. 5; Case C-440/05 Commission v. Council [2007] ECR I-9097; Case C-411/06 Commission v. Parliament and Council (8 September 2009) (OJ C 267 of 07.11.2009, p.8).
• [4]  Case C-155/07 Parliament v. Council [2008] ECR I-8103, para. 36.
• [5]               OJ L 42, 14.2.2006, p. 1.
• [6]  The following were present for the final vote: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (Chair), Luigi Berlinguer (Vice-Chair), Raffaele Baldassarre (Vice-Chair), Evelyn Regner (Vice-Chair), Sebastian Valentin Bodu (Vice-Chair), Marielle Gallo, Giuseppe Gargani, Rainer Wieland, Tadeusz Zwiefka, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Bernhard Rapkay, Alexandra Thein, Cecilia Wikström, Christian Engström, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Dimitar Stoyanov, Kurt Lechner, Paulo Rangel, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Toine Manders, Eva Lichtenberger.

OPINION of the Committee on International Trade (29.6.2011)

for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union
(COM(2010)0498 – C7–0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD))

Rapporteur: Marielle De Sarnez

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The purpose of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union published on 24 September 2010 is to recast Regulation (EC) No 247/2006, which governs the Programmes of options specifically relating to the remoteness and insularity (POSEI), to take account of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The regulation would allow free trade in processed products covered by specific supply arrangements (SSA) between the outermost regions and raises the annual maximum ceilings for the specific supply arrangements for France and Portugal.

· Background

Since 1990, specific measures have been taken for the benefit of agriculture in the nine outermost regions of the Union (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands) to take account of their special characteristics: remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult terrain, climate and economic dependence on a small number of products. The system was modified in 2001 and in 2006 to take account of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform in 2003 and the strategy for the outermost regions drawn up by the Commission in 2004.

· Positive results achieved by POSEI

POSEI programmes made it possible to diversify the regions’ crop production, restore the banana sector after cyclone Dean and improve the situation of various sectors.

The specific supply arrangements made it possible to maintain local production structures and create additional jobs.

Agricultural production support measures made it possible to limit the decline of agricultural activities, particularly in the banana and sugar sectors.

· Is the POSEI system enough to protect the outermost regions?

The Geneva agreement and the agreements concluded with the Andean countries and Central America threaten the stability of the outermost regions.

These agreements were negotiated with countries whose production costs are much lower than those of the outermost regions, mainly because their plant health standards fall short of those required under European law. There is a danger that there will be a massive influx of agricultural products from those countries to the European market, which up to now has been the main outlet for agricultural products from the EU’s overseas territories, thus placing the banana, sugar and rum sectors at risk.

· Your rapporteur’s proposals

First proposal: to add Article 349 of the TFEU. The proposal for a regulation refers only to Articles 42 and 43 of the TFEU, which relate to the CAP. Article 349 of the TFEU, however, provides for the adoption of ‘specific measures’ for the outermost regions in particular areas, including agriculture policy, in view of their special characteristics.

Second proposal: to involve local authorities to a greater extent to ensure the programme is geared more closely to the real needs of the outermost regions - Article 6(2), Article 31 and Article 10. The programme should take greater account of the expectations voiced by local stakeholders, to which end extra time should be allowed to enable such stakeholders to be more closely involved and to hold more, and more detailed, exchanges of views on the effectiveness of the programmes.

Third proposal: to encourage regional trade by making it possible to grant aid for transport costs in addition to the specific supply arrangements - Article 9.

Processed products incorporating raw materials which have benefited from specific supply arrangements can be dispatched between French overseas departments. However, in order to encourage regional trade and allow new sectors to be developed within the outermost regions, provisions should be introduced to offset the transport costs of such products. This would open up significant possibilities for regional development.

Fourth proposal: to clarify the wording of Article 18 by suggesting new provisions concerning the obligatory content of POSEI programmes, which are divided into measures (which may be further subdivided into actions). The funding allocations will be detailed in a financial model.

Fifth proposal: to include the banana sector in the programmes for action to combat plant pests - Article 23(1).

Sixth proposal: to increase the proposed ceiling for the specific supply arrangements under the French POSEI for imports of raw materials for animal feed - Article 29. This increase would take account of the growth forecast in the livestock sector in French overseas territories and the current development of livestock production sectors while monitoring developments in relation to additional costs and supply sources.

Seventh proposal: to ask the Commission to systematically assess the effects on the outermost regions of trade agreements (Articles 29 and 31) by reference to preliminary impact studies and, if necessary, propose appropriate compensation for the outermost regions, particularly in the banana sector.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1 Proposal for a regulation Citation 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,	Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 42, Article 43(2) and Article 349 thereof,
Justification
At present POSEI has a twofold legal base: the two TFEU articles on the CAP (former Articles 36 and 37) and the article specifically relating to the outermost regions (former Article 299(2)). In the proposed recast of the Regulation, however, the legal base is restricted to the new CAP articles (42(1) and 43(2)), and there is no reference to the new article (349) specifically relating to the outermost regions. A reference to the CAP articles alone is not an adequate basis for the adoption of specific measures for the outermost regions.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4a) To avoid undermining the POSEI objectives, the Commission shall carry out prior impact studies of the possible effects (based on the criteria set by the UN) whenever international trade agreements are negotiated which may affect sectors supported by the POSEI. On completion, said prior impact studies shall be forwarded by the Commission to Parliament, the Council and the local or regional authorities of the outermost regions before conclusion of the international agreements concerned.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(8a) Support for traditional sectors is all the more necessary because it enables them to maintain the quality of their products and to remain competitive on the EU market in the face of competition from third countries, and because new trade agreements posing a threat to these sectors have just been signed with Latin American countries and within the WTO. The Commission and the Member States should, however, ensure that support provided to so-called traditional sectors does not threaten the development of other diversified animal and vegetable sectors.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(36a) To ensure that the specific aid granted by this Regulation to the outermost regions remains unaffected, the Commission should improve coordination between the Union’s common policies and the other sector-specific policies. Such policy coordination could take the form of impact assessments, for example.
Justification
The sector-specific (regional, development and research) policies should be consistent with POSEI measures, trade policy and agriculture and fisheries policy. So, if trade agreements are likely to have negative consequences for the outermost regions, they should be the subject of specific impact assessments.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(36b) As the last POSEI support Regulation, namely Regulation (EC) No 247/2006, was adopted in the light of the agreed WTO European market access tariff of EUR 176 per tonne, consequently the tariff laid down in the WTO agreements on trade in bananas and the further reductions granted in trade agreements with the Andean countries and the countries of Central America were not taken into account in the POSEI financial envelope; therefore a new updated, comprehensive and external impact assessment should be completed at an early stage and, if it shows adverse effects on EU banana producers, the financial resources available under the POSEI programme should be modified in order to introduce appropriate compensation and measures to increase the competitiveness of banana producers in the outermost regions of the Union.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Consistency of the measures taken under POSEI programmes with measures implemented under other instruments of the common agricultural policy, and in particular the common organisations of markets, rural development, product quality, animal welfare and protection of the environment, must be ensured.	2. Consistency of the measures taken under POSEI programmes with measures implemented under other instruments of the common agricultural policy, and in particular the common organisations of markets, rural development, product quality, animal welfare, the protection of the environment and trade policy must be ensured.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Depending on the annual evaluation of the implementation of measures included in the POSEI programmes, the Member States may submit to the Commission proposals for amendments thereto within the context of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3), to bring them more into line with the requirements of the outermost regions and the strategy proposed. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the uniform measures for the submission of proposals for amendments to the programme.	2. Depending on the annual evaluation of the implementation of measures included in the POSEI programmes, the Member States may submit to the Commission, by 30 September of each year at the latest, proposals for amendments thereto for the following year within the context of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3), to bring them more into line with the requirements of the outermost regions and the strategy proposed. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the uniform measures for the submission of proposals for amendments to the programme.
Justification
The aim is to postpone the deadline for submitting requests for amendments to the programme from 30 June to 30 September, as the implementation of annual programmes stops on 30 June of the following year. This would enable local operators such as chambers of agriculture and regional and departmental councils to be involved and allow lessons to be learnt from the previous year.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3a. Paragraph 3 shall not apply in the case of products processed in French overseas departments from raw materials which have benefited from specific supply arrangements being dispatched between French overseas departments.
Justification
Given the cost of transport between French overseas departments, provision should be made for the possibility of granting aid in addition to the specific supply agreements for cattle feed produced in the French Antilles and shipped to Guyana.
Until such time as an efficient processing system is set up, such aid would enable Guyana to obtain products at prices comparable to those applied in Guadeloupe or Martinique. A similar form of aid might be considered in future for products produced in Réunion and dispatched to Mayotte.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
d) where applicable, the need not to obstruct the potential development of local products.	(d) the need to encourage the potential development of local products.
Justification
If the intention is to reduce the food dependency of the outermost regions, local production must be encouraged. Measures to Support Local Production and SSAs are linked even though they pursue different objectives. Promoting the development of local production does not impair the internal cohesion between these two pillars of POSEI.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
a) exported to third countries or dispatched to the rest of the Union within the limits of traditional exports and traditional dispatches. These amounts are established by the Commission by means of an implementing act on the basis of dispatches or export average figures during 1989, 1990 and 1991;	a) exported to third countries or dispatched to the rest of the Union within the established limits of traditional exports and traditional dispatches. These amounts are established by the Commission by means of an implementing act on the basis of dispatches or export average figures, taking as a reference the verified average figures for the three best years since 1989;
Amendment  11 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. For the purposes of this chapter, ‘regional trade’ shall be understood as trade, for each French overseas department, with the Azores and Madeira and the Canary Islands, with third countries established by the Commission by means of an implementing act.	3. For the purposes of this chapter, ‘regional trade’ shall be understood as trade, for each French overseas department, with the Azores and Madeira and the Canary Islands, with third countries belonging to the same geographical and ocean areas as those regions and with third countries with which they have historical links.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point e
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
e) conditions for the granting of aid, the products and volumes concerned;	deleted
Justification
The wording of this article needs to be clarified.
The POSEI programmes are divided into measures for which the funding allocations are detailed in a financial model. Each of these measures may be divided up into several actions.
Paragraph 2 refers to the measures. Hence it is proposed that point (e), referring to the details of each action, be deleted. Furthermore this point is superfluous as it duplicates paragraph 4 which concerns the actions.
Amendment  13 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point f
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
f) the aid amount established for each measure or action in order to achieve one or more objectives for the programme.	(f) the aid amount established for each measure in order to achieve one or more objectives for the programme.
Justification
Paragraph 2 refers to the measures. It is therefore proposed that the reference to actions under this point be deleted.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
c) individual aid;	c) the unit amount of aid;
Justification
In the interest of clarity, it is proposed that the term ‘individual aid’ in point (c) be replaced with the phrase ‘the unit amount of aid’.
Amendment  15 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
d) ceiling.	deleted
Justification
At present, the financial ceilings are set for each measure and not for each action. It is therefore proposed to delete point (d) which requires the setting of a ceiling for each action. This is unnecessary given that the unit amount of the aid and the conditions of eligibility have already been set.
Amendment  16 Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Notwithstanding Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the maximum annual amounts eligible for European Union aid, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, may be increased up to twofold in the case of the measure to protect lakes in the Azores and the measure to preserve the landscape and traditional features of agricultural land and the conservation of stone walls supporting terraces in Madeira.	1. Notwithstanding Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the maximum annual amounts eligible for European Union aid, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, may be increased up to twofold in the case of the measure to protect lakes in the Azores and the measure to preserve the landscape, biodiversity and traditional features of agricultural land and the conservation of stone walls supporting terraces in Madeira.
Justification
The overseas territories represent 80% of the EU’s biodiversity. It is therefore necessary to include actions to preserve biodiversity in the measure for the preservation of landscape.
Amendment  17 Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4a. To increase the market competitiveness of agricultural products from the outermost regions and improve the ability of agricultural holdings to withstand natural disasters and hazards, steps shall be taken to encourage each subsector as a whole to take out disaster risk insurance. With a view to this, cooperatives, farmers’ associations and all other agricultural bodies shall be exempted from the ban on receiving state aid to promote access to agricultural insurance cover.
Amendment  18 Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. France and Portugal shall submit programmes to the Commission for the control of organisms harmful to plants or plant products in the French overseas departments and the Azores and Madeira respectively. The programmes shall specify in particular the objectives to be achieved, the measures to be carried out, their duration and their cost. The programmes submitted pursuant to this Article shall not concern the protection of bananas.	1. France and Portugal shall submit programmes to the Commission for the control of organisms harmful to plants or plant products in the French overseas departments and the Azores and Madeira respectively. The programmes shall specify in particular the objectives to be achieved, the measures to be carried out, their duration and their cost.
Justification
It is proposed to make bananas eligible for these programmes, since banana planters, including those of Guadeloupe and Martinique, are having to contend with black leaf streak disease, a severe disease of the banana plant, and at least another five years of research are needed before disease-resistant banana varieties with good eating qualities can be developed.
Amendment  19 Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Spain is authorised to award aid concerning the production of tobacco in the Canary Islands. The granting of this aid may not result in discrimination between producers in the islands.	Spain is authorised to award aid concerning the production of tobacco in the Canary Islands owing to the specific features of this crop and the lack of potential for diversifying local agricultural production. The granting of this aid may not result in discrimination between producers in the islands.
Amendment  20 Proposal for a regulation Article 29, paragraph 3, first indent
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– in the Overseas Departments of France: EUR 24.8 million	– in the Overseas Departments of France: EUR 26.9 million
Justification
Keeping too low a ceiling on SSA would make it impossible to monitor the development of additional costs and sources of supply. It is necessary to raise the proposed ceiling in order to take account of predicted growth of the stock rearing sector in the French Overseas Departments and to enable the current development of the various livestock sectors to continue.
Amendment  21 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4a. In view of the adverse effects on European banana producers of a gradual lowering of customs duties on bananas under the multilateral Geneva agreement and the free trade agreements with the Andean countries, Central America and other regions, appropriate compensation shall be paid to banana producers in the outermost regions of Europe. This compensation shall be of the order of EUR 30 million per year for all the European banana producing countries.
Amendment  22 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Member States shall submit to the Commission, not later than 31 July each year, a report on the implementation of the measures provided for in this Regulation over the previous year.	2. Member States shall submit to the Commission, not later than 30 September each year, a report on the implementation of the measures provided for in this Regulation over the previous year.
Justification
This would enable information from local operators such as chambers of agriculture and regional and departmental councils to be inserted in the report and lessons learnt from the previous year.
Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2 a. Whenever significant changes to the common agricultural policy are envisaged, or whenever the Union opens trade negotiations with third countries, regional organisations in third countries or international organisations which may affect agricultural sectors supported under POSEI, the Commission shall carry out specific prior impact assessments of the possible consequences for agriculture in the outermost regions; such assessments shall be repeated on a regular basis. These assessments shall be forwarded to the European Parliament, accompanied where necessary by proposals for appropriate compensation.
Justification
The sector-specific policies (regional, development and research policies) should be coordinated with the POSEI measures, trade policy and the agriculture or fisheries policies. Accordingly, where trade agreements are likely to have adverse effects on the outermost regions they must be subjected to specific impact assessments.

PROCEDURE

Title	Specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union
References	COM(2010)0498 – C7-0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD)
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	AGRI 7.10.2010
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)        Date announced in plenary	INTA 7.10.2010
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Marielle De Sarnez 26.10.2010
Discussed in committee	24.5.2011
Date adopted	21.6.2011
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	23 1 0
Members present for the final vote	Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Kader Arif, David Campbell Bannerman, Daniel Caspary, Marielle De Sarnez, Christofer Fjellner, Yannick Jadot, Bernd Lange, David Martin, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Vital Moreira, Paul Murphy, Cristiana Muscardini, Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Niccolò Rinaldi, Tokia Saïfi, Helmut Scholz, Peter Šťastný, Keith Taylor, Iuliu Winkler, Pablo Zalba Bidegain, Paweł Zalewski
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Josefa Andrés Barea, Catherine Bearder, George Sabin Cutaş, Maria Eleni Koppa, Elisabeth Köstinger, Jörg Leichtfried

OPINION of the Committee on Budgets (12.9.2011)

for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union
(COM(2010)0498 – C7-0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD))

Rapporteur: Giovanni La Via

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (POSEI) intend to remedy the difficulties caused by their remoteness, insularity, small size, topography and specific climate, which give rise to various socio-economic difficulties, especially related to the competitiveness of agriculture and their industrial processing sector.

The present opinion seeks to support and reinforce the objectives of the POSEI programme. In particular, it suggests that a slight increase of the financing of the measures is necessary, in order to address properly the difficulties caused by their specific situation, deteriorated due to the current economic and financial crisis, and to the increasing pressure the targeted sectors are under. In particular, this increase would serve to ensure that these regions can continue to implement appropriate measures for the promotion of sustainable development, the protection and sustainable use of agriculture and its resources. It need to be taken into account that the unemployment rates of this regions doubles that of the EU, as well as that of the Member States they belong to. In addition, due to their specificities and their vulnerability, their economic recovery requires strengthened and longer term attention.

The European Commission and the Court of Auditors in its report on functioning of POSEI 2010, underline the usefulness of this scheme to overcome the difficulties imposed on these regions. However, the resources allocated to these programmes (EUR 653 million for the nine regions) are insufficient, as certified by the fact that agriculture is in a phase of decline and on a national scale certain decisions have been taken to support the POSEI programmes with state aid. The structural problems and increasing pressure from competition from imports from third countries are linked to the bad evolution of many sectors.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 34 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(34a) Funding for the banana sector should be increased in the context of specific measures to assist remote and island regions (POSEI) in order to mitigate the negative effects on the incomes of Union producers income of the forthcoming reduction in customs duties on imports of bananas into the Union. There is, therefore, an ongoing need to assess the impact of tariff concessions granted by the Union in order to determine whether a review of the aid granted to Union producers is necessary.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 34 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	34b. The Commission should submit a report to Parliament and the Council assessing the impact that any new tariff concessions in respect of imports of bananas into the European Union will have on producers’ incomes. That report should be accompanied, where necessary, by a legislative proposal concerning the adjustment of the sums laid down in this Regulation with the aim of offsetting the losses of income suffered by European producers.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(36) Since 2006, requirements in essential products have increased in some outermost regions, particularly in the Azores and in the French overseas departments, as a result of the increasing livestock population and demographic pressure. The proportion of the budget which Member States may use for the specific supply arrangements for the regions concerned should therefore be increased.	(36) Since 2006, requirements in essential products have increased in some outermost regions, particularly in the Azores and in the French overseas departments, as a result of the increasing livestock population and demographic pressure. The annual budgetary allocation for the POSEI programmes and the proportion of the budget which Member States may use for the specific supply arrangements for the regions concerned should therefore be increased.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	36a. Once the territory of Mayotte has acquired outermost region status, the Commission should put forward a new proposal that seeks to increase proportionally the budget earmarked for the overseas departments, that takes account of Mayotte’s new status, and that incorporates specific provisions concerning Mayotte.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Notwithstanding Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the maximum annual amounts eligible for European Union aid, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, may be increased up to twofold in the case of the measure to protect lakes in the Azores and the measure to preserve the landscape and traditional features of agricultural land and the conservation of stone walls supporting terraces in Madeira.	1. Notwithstanding Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the maximum annual amounts eligible for European Union aid, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, may be increased up to twofold in the case of the measure to protect lakes in the Azores and the measure to preserve the landscape and traditional features of agricultural land and the conservation of stone walls in the outermost regions.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 - point 2 - right column - line 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
EUR 278,41 million	EUR 308,21 million
Amendment  7 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 - point 2 - right column - line 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
EUR 106,21 million	EUR 117,61 million
Amendment  8 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 - point 2 - right column - line 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
EUR 268,42 million	EUR 297,12 million
Amendment  9 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 - point 3 - right column - line 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
EUR 24,8 million	EUR 26,9 million

PROCEDURE

Title	Specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union
References	COM(2010)0498 – C7-0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD)
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	AGRI 7.10.2010
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)        Date announced in plenary	BUDG 7.10.2010
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Giovanni La Via 4.10.2010
Date adopted	8.9.2011
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	20 5 0
Members present for the final vote	Damien Abad, Alexander Alvaro, Marta Andreasen, Francesca Balzani, Reimer Böge, Andrea Cozzolino, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Göran Färm, José Manuel Fernandes, Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, Jens Geier, Estelle Grelier, Jutta Haug, Anne E. Jensen, Alain Lamassoure, Giovanni La Via, Claudio Morganti, Nadezhda Neynsky, Helga Trüpel, Angelika Werthmann, Jacek Włosowicz
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Maria Da Graça Carvalho, Jan Mulder, Peter Šťastný, Georgios Stavrakakis

OPINION of the Committee on Regional Development (1.7.2011)

for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union
(COM(2010)0498 – C7‑0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD))

Rapporteur: Elie Hoarau

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

It took 30 years for the concept of the ‘outermost regions’ to emerge and become established in the European Community; the key stages in that process were the European Court of Justice’s 1978 Hansen judgment, Parliament’s 1987 Ligios report and the various standpoints adopted by the European Council and the Commission. 1989 was thus the starting point in the process of taking proper account of the specific characteristics of the outermost regions (OR), through the establishment of an appropriate legal framework for the adoption of measures designed to integrate the OR into the European Community, more completely and on a fairer basis. The Treaty of Amsterdam consolidated the legal basis for specific measures to support the OR. The Lisbon Treaty confirmed that the OR are characterised by their remoteness from the main Community market and by permanent constraints, factors which confer on the OR special status within the EU justifying the implementation of tailored measures.

1989, the year in which the specific characteristics of the OR began to be recognised in the EU, is thus a key year for POSEI, the first programme established by the EU to take account of those specific characteristics.

This confirms the idea that Article 349 TFEU (formerly Article 299(2) TEC), in conjunction with Articles 42, first subparagraph, and 43(2), must remain the legal basis for the POSEI regulation.

Article 349 TFEU gives the Committee on Regional Development a specific, pre-eminent role when it comes to considering any document or regulation relating to POSEI. This is why the history of this regulation and its substance are so important to the members of the Committee on Regional Development.

Why specific support for agriculture in the OR?

In the OR, agriculture is a strategic economic sector in two respects. Firstly, it is one of the most important sources of jobs and economic growth in these regions – a large proportion of the active population work in agriculture. Secondly, agriculture and its diversification are bound up with the concept of food security, one which is all the more important for the OR because they are isolated island regions remote from the European continent.

Objectives

Increasing their degree of food self-sufficiency – leading to a reduction in imports of agricultural products and, at the same time, an increase in local agricultural production - is a key issue for the OR and one which is central to their development strategies.

However, it must be clearly understood that this challenge cannot be met simply by replacing traditional products (bananas, sugar, rum) with new ones. Agricultural diversification works well when traditional sectors are doing well. Supporting traditional sectors is all the more important because it enables them to maintain their position on the European market in the face of competition from Latin American and ACP countries. The latter countries have much lower production and wage costs and can achieve economies of scale which are denied to the OR by virtue of their geography (islands), their remoteness from the main European market and their administrative status as regions. The revenue generated by the products and by-products of traditional sectors must, however, be shared fairly amongst farmers, processors and distributors, so that each enjoys a decent livelihood.

Assessment and reforms

The previous POSEI programme (2006-2011) can be counted a success, as evidenced by the report of the European Court of Auditors and that drawn up on behalf of the Commission and published in 2010. The arrangements it introduced should therefore be retained and placed on a permanent footing, as should the flexible management approach which has been central to their success. In that connection, your rapporteur is keen to stress the need for the Commission to carry out impact assessments every time an international trade agreement is signed which might pose a threat to the sectors supported by POSEI.

However, the objectives pursued by POSEI must be more clearly defined and tailored to the challenges facing the OR. With that aim in view, a separate objective, focusing on the development of local agriculture and the reduction of imports, must be incorporated into POSEI.

The implementation of research and training programmes which can contribute to the emergence and development of sustainable, high value-added forms of agricultural production must also be a new POSEI objective. In that connection, steps must be taken to ensure that the POSEI programme is consistent with the Commission’s 2008 communication on the new strategy for the OR.

It is essential, particularly in France, that the elected leaders of the local authorities with responsibility for agriculture in the OR should be involved as far as possible in the implementation of the POSEI programme. POSEI is a quintessentially local programme, and local elected representatives must assume their share of responsibility for its implementation.

Finally, the POSEI programmes must undergo regular assessments by the Commission in order to ensure that genuine, effective efforts are being made to achieve the objectives set.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Regional Development calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1 Proposal for a regulation Citation 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,	– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 349, the first subparagraph of Article 42 and Article 43(2) thereof,
Justification
The legal basis for the regulation needs to be expanded to include Article 349 TFEU, which refers specifically to the Union’s outermost regions.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(4) In order to achieve the objectives of the scheme promoting the Union’s outermost regions more effectively, the POSEI programmes must include measures which ensure the supply of agricultural products and the preservation and development of local agricultural production. The level of programming for the regions concerned needs to be harmonised and the policy of partnership between the Commission and the Member States needs to become more systematic.	(4) In order to achieve the objectives of the scheme promoting the Union’s outermost regions more effectively, the POSEI programmes must include measures which ensure the supply of agricultural products and the preservation and development of high-quality local agricultural production, taking imperatives linked to the fight against climate change into account. The level of programming for the regions concerned needs to be harmonised and the policy of partnership between the Commission, the Member States and the elected departmental or regional authorities in the outermost regions needs to become more systematic.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4a) In order not to undermine the efforts to achieve the POSEI objectives, the Commission should carry out impact assessments or prior evaluations of the possible consequences (using the criteria laid down by the UN) each time an international trade agreement is negotiated which may pose a threat to the sectors supported under POSEI. Once these impact assessments or prior evaluations have been carried out, the Commission should forward the results to the European Parliament, the Council and the elected departmental or regional authorities in the outermost regions before the international agreements in question are concluded.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(6) In order to ensure the supply of essential agricultural products to the outermost regions and to compensate for the additional costs caused by their extreme remoteness, it is appropriate to introduce a specific supply arrangement. In fact, the exceptional geographical situation of the outermost regions imposes additional transport costs in supplying products which are essential for human consumption, for processing or as agricultural inputs. In addition, other objective factors linked to these regions’ extreme remoteness, namely their insularity and small surface areas, lead to further constraints on economic operators and producers in the outermost regions that severely handicap their activities. These handicaps can be alleviated by lowering the price of these essential products.	(6) Without prejudicing local production and its development, it is appropriate to introduce a specific supply arrangement in order to ensure the supply of essential agricultural products to the outermost regions and to compensate for the additional costs caused by their extreme remoteness. In fact, the exceptional geographical situation of the outermost regions imposes additional transport costs in supplying products which are essential for human consumption, for processing or as agricultural inputs. In addition, other objective factors linked to these regions’ extreme remoteness, namely their insularity and small surface areas, lead to further constraints on economic operators and producers in the outermost regions that severely handicap their activities. These handicaps can be alleviated by lowering the price of these essential products.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(8) In order to achieve in an effective manner the lowering of prices in the outermost regions and mitigating the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, all the while maintaining the competitiveness of EU products, aid should be granted for the supply of Community products to the outermost regions. Such aid should take account of the additional cost of transport to these regions and the cost of exports to third countries and, in the case of agricultural inputs and products intended for processing, the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, specifically insularity and small surface areas.	(8) In order to achieve in an effective manner the lowering of prices in the outermost regions by mitigating the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, all the while maintaining the competitiveness of their agricultural products, aid should be granted for the supply of Community products to the outermost regions. Such aid should take account of the additional cost linked to the transport of the products in question to these regions and the cost of exports to third countries and, in the case of agricultural inputs and products intended for processing, the additional costs of their extreme remoteness, specifically insularity and small surface areas.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(8a) Support for traditional sectors is all the more necessary because it enables them to maintain the quality of their products and to remain competitive on the EU market in the face of competition from third countries, and because new trade agreements posing a threat to these sectors have just been signed with Latin American countries and within the WTO. However, the Commission and the Member States should ensure that the support granted to so-called traditional sectors does not hamper the development of livestock and crop diversification sectors.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(14) However, appropriate measures should be taken to allow for the necessary restructuring of the sugar processing sector in the Azores. These measures should take into account that in order for the sugar sector on the Azores to be viable, a certain level of production and processing needs to be ensured. Against this background, dispatches of sugar from the Azores to the rest of the Union should be allowed exceptionally to exceed traditional flows for a limited period of five years, subject to progressively reduced annual limits. Given that the quantities that may be re-dispatched will be proportional and limited to the extent strictly necessary for ensuring the viability of local sugar production and processing, such temporary dispatching of sugar from the Azores will not adversely affect the internal market of the Union.	(14) However, appropriate measures should be taken to allow for the necessary restructuring of the sugar processing sector in the Azores. These measures should take into account that in order for the sugar sector on the Azores to be viable, a certain level of production and processing needs to be ensured. Against this background, dispatches of sugar from the Azores to the rest of the Union must be allowed to exceed traditional flows. Given that the quantities that may be re-dispatched will be limited to the extent strictly necessary for ensuring the viability of local sugar production and processing, such dispatching of sugar from the Azores will not adversely affect the internal market of the Union.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 17
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(17) Given that rice constitutes a staple of the diet of Réunion, and since the island does not produce sufficient quantities to meet local requirements, the import of this product to the island should continue to be exempt from any form of import tax.	(17) Given that rice constitutes a staple of the diet of Réunion and that rice processing and polishing industries have been established there for many years, and since the island does not produce sufficient quantities of rice to meet local requirements, the import of this product to the island should continue to be exempt from any form of import tax.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 22
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(22) Farmers in the outermost regions should be encouraged to supply quality products and the marketing of these should be assisted. Use of the logo introduced by the Union may be useful to this end.	(22) Farmers in the outermost regions should be encouraged to continue to supply high-quality products and to prioritise their marketing. Use of the logo introduced by the Union may be useful to this end. The use of quality indicators, such as labels or protected designations of origin, should also be encouraged in order to promote the products of the outermost regions.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 27
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(27) The plant health of agricultural crops in the outermost regions is subject to particular problems associated with the climate and the inadequacy of the control measures hitherto applied there. Programmes should therefore be implemented to combat harmful organisms, including by organic methods. The Union’s financial contribution towards such programmes should be defined.	(27) The plant health of agricultural crops in the outermost regions is subject to particular problems associated with the climate and the inadequacy of the control measures hitherto applied there. Research and training programmes based primarily on the use of organic, environmentally sound methods should therefore be implemented to combat harmful organisms. The Union’s financial contribution towards such programmes should be defined.
Amendment  11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 28
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(28) The maintenance of vineyards, which are the most widespread type of cultivation in the regions of Madeira and the Canary Islands and a very important one for the Azores, is an economic and environmental imperative. To help support production, neither the abandonment premiums nor the market mechanisms provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should be applicable in these regions, but nonetheless, in the Canary Islands, it should be possible to apply crisis distillation measures in the event of exceptional market disturbance arising from quality problems. Similarly, technical and socio-economic difficulties have prevented complete conversion, within the time limits established, of the areas in the regions of Madeira and the Azores under vines of hybrid varieties prohibited by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The wine produced by such vineyards is intended solely for traditional local consumption.	(28) The maintenance of vineyards, which are the most widespread type of cultivation in the regions of Madeira and the Canary Islands and a very important one for the Azores, is an economic, social and environmental imperative. To help support production, neither the abandonment premiums nor the market mechanisms provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 should be applicable in these regions, but nonetheless, in the Canary Islands, it should be possible to apply crisis distillation measures in the event of exceptional market disturbance arising from quality problems. Similarly, technical and socio-economic difficulties have prevented complete conversion, within the time limits established, of the areas in the regions of Madeira and the Azores under vines of hybrid varieties prohibited by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The wine produced by such vineyards is intended solely for traditional local consumption.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 30
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(30) Support for the production of cow’s milk in Madeira and Réunion has not been sufficient to maintain the balance between domestic and external supply, chiefly because of the serious structural difficulties affecting the sector and its poor capacity to adapt to new economic environments. Consequently, authorisation to produce UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder of EU origin should continue, in order to cover local consumption more fully. In order to inform the consumer correctly, it should be made compulsory to indicate the method by which UHT milk is reconstituted using milk powder on the sales labelling.	(30) Support for the production of cow’s milk in Madeira and Réunion has not been sufficient to maintain the balance between domestic and external supply, chiefly because of the serious structural difficulties affecting the sector and its problems in adapting to new economic environments. Consequently, authorisation to produce UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder of EU origin should continue, in order to cover local consumption more fully, provided that this does not pose an obstacle to the collection and marketing of all locally produced milk, or hamper the efforts to promote the expansion of local production, the medium-term aim being to secure, for Réunion, self-sufficiency in milk. In order to inform the consumer correctly, it should be made compulsory to indicate the method by which UHT milk is reconstituted using milk powder on the sales labelling. This provision should also be applicable in Martinique, French Guiana and Guadeloupe, should France make such a request citing the wish of local stakeholders to be covered by it and their ability to develop the milk sector.
Amendment  13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 35
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(35) Implementation of this Regulation must not jeopardise the level of special support from which the outermost regions have benefited up to now. For that reason, so that they can implement the appropriate measures, the Member States should have at their disposal sums equivalent to the support already granted by the Community under Regulation (EC) No 247/2006.	(35) In order to ensure that the objectives of this Regulation, in particular the safeguarding and development of agricultural activities in the outermost regions, are met, the sums equivalent to the support already granted by the Union to the outermost regions under Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 should be reviewed.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 36
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(36) Since 2006, requirements in essential products have increased in some outermost regions, particularly in the Azores and in the French overseas departments, as a result of the increasing livestock population and demographic pressure. The proportion of the budget which Member States may use for the specific supply arrangements for the regions concerned should therefore be increased.	(36) Since 2006, requirements in essential products have increased in some outermost regions, particularly in the Azores and in the French overseas departments, as a result of the increasing livestock population and demographic pressure. The annual budgetary allocation for the POSEI programmes and the proportion of the budget which Member States may use for the specific supply arrangements for the regions concerned should therefore be increased.
Amendment  15 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) guaranteed supply to the outermost regions of products essential for human consumption or for processing and as agricultural inputs by mitigating the additional costs due to extreme remoteness;	(a) guaranteed supply to the outermost regions of products essential for human consumption or for processing and as agricultural inputs by mitigating the additional costs due to extreme remoteness, without harming local production and the growth thereof;
Amendment  16 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) preservation and development of agricultural activities in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and the sale of local products.	(b) securing the long-term future and development of the so-called livestock and crop diversification sectors in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and the sale of local products, thereby significantly improving the local population’s degree of self-sufficiency by increasing domestic production and reducing imports;
Amendment  17 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(ba) maintaining the development and strengthening the competitiveness of traditional agricultural activities in the outermost regions, including the production, processing and marketing of local crops and products, whilst ensuring that the revenue generated by the products and by-products of traditional agricultural sectors is shared fairly between producers, processors and distributors;
Amendment  18 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(bb) fostering research and innovation, in particular with a view to developing sustainable, high value-added agricultural production.
Amendment  19 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. The objectives set out in paragraph 1 must be achieved by taking a holistic approach to sustainable development which seeks both to safeguard the environment and guarantee producers and farmers a decent income. This must also involve measures to provide farmers and processors with ongoing training in order to foster the development of high-quality, productive and sustainable agricultural sectors.
Amendment  20 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) specific measures to assist local agricultural production as provided for in Chapter IV.	(b) specific measures to assist local agricultural production, as referred to in Chapter IV and in accordance with the objectives set out in Article 2.
Amendment  21 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	1a. A single POSEI programme may be submitted by each Member State in respect of its outermost regions.
Amendment  22 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. The POSEI programme shall be established at the geographical level which the Member State concerned deems most appropriate. It shall be prepared by the competent authorities designated by the said Member State, which shall submit it to the Commission for approval in accordance with Article 6 after the competent authorities and organisations at the appropriate regional level have been consulted.	2. The POSEI programmes shall be established by the authority or authorities designated by the Member State concerned at the geographical level deemed most appropriate.
Amendment  23 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. At the geographical level deemed most appropriate, the competent departmental or regional authorities, relevant organisations and the representative and/or professional organisations involved must be consulted on the draft POSEI programmes before they are submitted to the Commission for approval.
Amendment  24 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. A single POSEI programme may be submitted for each Member State in respect of its outermost regions.	3. The Member States shall submit to the Commission and to all the organisations concerned by POSEI a clear organisational chart relating to the process of drawing up POSEI programmes.
Amendment  25 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Measures taken under POSEI programmes must comply with European Union law and be consistent with other EU policies and with the measures taken under such policies.	1. Measures taken under POSEI programmes must comply with European Union law and be consistent with other EU policies and with the measures taken under such policies, without prejudice to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which grants the outermost regions special status with a view to fostering their development and their integration on a fair basis into the Union through the implementation of specific programmes and instruments tailored to their situation.
Amendment  26 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 - paragraph 2 - point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) support for research projects, measures to support research projects or measures eligible for European Union financing under Council Decision 2009/470/EC9;	deleted
__________________
9OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 30.
Amendment  27 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) the steps taken to ensure the programmes are implemented effectively and appropriately, including the arrangements for publicity, monitoring and evaluation, and a specified set of quantified indicators for use in programme evaluation.	(c) the steps taken to ensure the programmes are implemented effectively and appropriately, including the arrangements for publicity, monitoring and evaluation, and a specified set of quantified indicators for use in programme evaluation; those steps shall include, inter alia, the creation of a committee to monitor and evaluate actions in support of local production;
Amendment  28 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) the designation of the competent authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the programme and the designation at the appropriate levels of authorities or associated bodies and socio-economic partners, and the results of consultations held.	(d) the designation of the competent authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the programme and the designation at the appropriate levels of authorities, competent departmental or regional authorities, associated bodies and socio-economic partners, and the results of consultations held.
Amendment  29 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Member States shall submit a draft POSEI programme to the Commission in the light of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3).	1. Member States shall submit a draft POSEI programme to the Commission in the light of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3). The draft programme shall be deemed admissible by the Commission only if it has been notified to the leaders of the elected departmental or regional authorities.
Amendment  30 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Depending on the annual evaluation of the implementation of measures included in the POSEI programmes, the Member States may submit to the Commission proposals for amendments thereto within the context of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3), to bring them more into line with the requirements of the outermost regions and the strategy proposed. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the uniform measures for the submission of proposals for amendments to the programme.	2. Depending on the annual evaluation of the implementation of measures included in the POSEI programmes, the Member States may, after consulting the elected departmental or regional authorities, submit to the Commission proposals for amendments thereto within the context of the financial allocation referred to in Article 29(2) and (3), to bring them more into line with the requirements of the outermost regions and the strategy proposed. The Commission shall adopt by means of an implementing act the uniform measures for the submission of proposals for amendments to the programme.
Amendment  31 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. No aid shall be granted for the supply of products which have already benefited from the specific supply arrangements in another outermost region.	3. No aid shall be granted for the supply of products which have already benefited from the specific supply arrangements in another outermost region, in accordance with Article 12, which deals with the impact of the advantage.
Amendment  32 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 - paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The first subparagraph above shall not apply to trade flows between French overseas departments.	3. The first subparagraph above shall not apply to trade flows between French overseas departments and between French overseas departments and overseas territories. However, in the case of trade between French overseas departments the provisions on the impact of advantage laid down in Article 12 shall apply.
Amendment  33 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) exported to third countries or dispatched to the rest of the Union within the limits of traditional exports and traditional dispatches. These amounts are established by the Commission by means of an implementing act on the basis of dispatches or export average figures during 1989, 1990 and 1991;	(a) exported to third countries or dispatched to the rest of the Union within the limits laid down for traditional exports and traditional dispatches. These amounts are established by the Commission by means of an implementing act on the basis of dispatches or export average figures, taking as the point of reference the verified average for the three best years between 1989 and 2010;
Amendment  34 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 - paragraph 2 - point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) exported to third countries as part of regional trade in accordance with the destinations and conditions determined by the Commission by means of an implementing act;	(b) exported to third countries as part of regional trade;
Justification
The Commission’s proposed wording would place considerable restrictions on growth in the agri-industrial sector in the outermost regions, imposing obsolete amounts and export destinations which no longer in any way reflect reality.
Amendment  35 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) dispatched from the Azores to Madeira or vice versa;	deleted
Amendment  36 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(ca) dispatched between the regions of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands;
Amendment  37 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 - paragraph 2 - point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) dispatched from Madeira to the Canary Islands or vice versa;	deleted
Amendment  38 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. For the purposes of this chapter, ‘regional trade’ shall be understood as trade, for each French overseas department, with the Azores and Madeira and the Canary Islands, with third countries established by the Commission by means of an implementing act.	3. For the purposes of this chapter, ‘regional trade’ shall be understood as trade, for each French overseas department, with the Azores and Madeira and the Canary Islands, with third countries belonging to the same geographical and ocean areas as those regions and with third countries with which they have historical links.
Amendment  39 Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
5. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, first subparagraph, point (a), the following maximum quantities of sugar (CN code 1701) may be dispatched annually from the Azores to the rest of the Union for a five-year period:	5. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, first subparagraph, point (a), a maximum quantity of 3000 tonnes of sugar (CN code 1701) may be dispatched annually from the Azores to the rest of the Union:
Amendment  40 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. The part of the programme which includes measures to assist local agricultural production shall comprise at least the following elements:	2. The parts of the programme which include measures to assist local agricultural production and which correspond to the objectives set out in Article 2 shall comprise at least the following elements:
Amendment  41 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 - paragraph 2 - point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) a description of the strategy proposed, the priorities selected, its quantified general and operational objectives, and an appraisal showing the expected economic, environmental and social impact, including employment effects;	(b) a description of the strategy proposed, the priorities selected, its quantified general and operational objectives, and an appraisal showing the expected economic, environmental and social impact, including employment effects and the effects on the quality of local products;
Amendment  42 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – point f
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(f) the aid amount established for each measure or action in order to achieve one or more objectives for the programme.	(f) the aid amount established for each measure and the provisional amount for each action in order to achieve one or more objectives for the programme.
Amendment  43 Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4a. Once the beneficiaries’ projects have been approved, the Member States may issue an attestation to make it easier for them to obtain prefinancing from a bank.
Amendment  44 Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. The conditions for using the logo referred to in paragraph 1 shall be proposed by the trade organisations concerned. The national authorities shall forward such proposals, with their opinion, to the Commission.	2. The conditions for using the logo referred to in paragraph 1 shall be proposed by the trade organisations concerned. After consulting the competent local authorities concerned, the national authorities shall forward such proposals, with their opinion and after consulting the elected departmental or regional authorities, to the Commission.
Amendment  45 Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Notwithstanding Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the maximum annual amounts eligible for European Union aid, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, may be increased up to twofold in the case of the measure to protect lakes in the Azores and the measure to preserve the landscape and traditional features of agricultural land and the conservation of stone walls supporting terraces in Madeira.	1. Notwithstanding Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the maximum annual amounts eligible for European Union aid, as set out in Annex I to that Regulation, may be increased up to twofold in the case of the measure to protect lakes in the Azores and the measure to preserve the landscape and traditional features of agricultural land and the conservation of stone walls supporting terraces in Madeira and the Canary Islands.
Amendment  46 Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Notwithstanding Article 114(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the production in Madeira and in the French overseas department of Réunion of UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder originating in the Union shall be authorised within the limits of local consumption requirements, in so far as this measure does not hinder that locally produced milk is collected and finds outlets. This product shall be used for local consumption only.	Notwithstanding Article 114(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the production in Madeira and in the French overseas department of Réunion of UHT milk reconstituted from milk powder originating in the Union shall be authorised within the limits of local consumption requirements, in so far as this measure does not hinder that locally produced milk is collected and finds outlets. Should the Member State in question demonstrate the expediency of such a measure for the French overseas departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe, the Commission shall be empowered, in accordance with Article 33, to adopt the necessary delegated acts in order to extend this measure to the aforementioned departments. This product shall be used for local consumption only.
Amendment  47 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In respect of each financial year, the Union shall finance the measures provided for in Chapters III and IV, up to an annual sum equivalent to:	In respect of each financial year, the Union shall finance the measures provided for in Chapters III and IV, up to a minimum annual sum equivalent to:
Amendment  48 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 – column 2 – row 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
EUR 278,41 million	EUR 306,41 million
Amendment  49 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 – column 2 – row 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
EUR 106,21 million	EUR 117,21 million
Amendment  50 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 – column 2 – row 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
EUR 268,42 million	EUR 295,42 million
Amendment  51 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. In respect of each financial year, the Union shall finance the measures provided for in Chapters III and IV, which should also include the real increases of 20% under the Special Supply Regime, which are considered necessary for Portugal and France.
Amendment  52 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 – column 2 – row 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
EUR 24,8 million	EUR 28,6 million
Amendment  53 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3a. Once the territory of Mayotte has acquired outermost region status, the Commission shall put forward a new proposal which seeks to increase proportionally the budget earmarked for the overseas departments, in order to take account of Mayotte’s new status, and to incorporate specific provisions concerning Mayotte.
Amendment  54 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	The Commission shall ensure that the allocation of aid among the outermost regions of a single Member State does not excessively disadvantage one or more of those regions.
Amendment  55 Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. In order to ensure a reasonable and proportional allocation of the finance measures with regard to studies, demonstration projects, training and technical assistance measures, the Commission shall establish by delegated act an annual maximum amount which may be allocated to these measures.	4. In order to ensure a reasonable and proportional allocation of the finance measures with regard to studies, research and innovation programmes, demonstration projects, training and technical assistance measures, the Commission shall establish by delegated act an annual maximum amount which may be allocated to these measures.
Amendment  56 Proposal for a regulation Rule 31 – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Communications and reports	Communications, reports and impact assessments
Amendment  57 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. Member States shall submit to the Commission, not later than 31 July each year, a report on the implementation of the measures provided for in this Regulation over the previous year.	2. Member States shall submit to the Commission, not later than 30 September each year, a report on the implementation of the measures provided for in this Regulation over the previous year.
Amendment  58 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. Not later than 30 June 2015, and thereafter every five years, the Commission shall submit a general report to the European Parliament and the Council showing the impact of the action taken under this Regulation, including in the banana sector, accompanied if applicable by appropriate proposals.	3. Not later than 30 June 2015, and thereafter every five years, the Commission shall submit a general report to the European Parliament and the Council showing the impact of the action taken under this Regulation, including in the banana and milk sectors, and the impact as regards the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 2, accompanied if applicable by appropriate proposals. Once they have been carried out, these assessments shall be translated without delay into Spanish, French and Portuguese and forwarded to the elected departmental or regional authorities of the outermost regions.
Amendment  59 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3a. If the Union opens trade negotiations with third countries, regional organisations in third countries or international organisations which may affect agricultural sectors supported under POSEI, and if significant changes to the common agricultural policy are envisaged, impact assessments or prior evaluations of the possible consequences for agriculture in the outermost regions must be carried out. The Commission shall base these assessments or evaluations on the relevant criteria laid down by the UN.
Amendment  60 Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3b. Following the impact studies referred to in paragraph 3a, if necessary modifications should be proposed with a view to adapting agriculture in the outermost regions more effectively to new circumstances.

PROCEDURE

Title	Specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union
References	COM(2010)0498 – C7-0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD)
Committee responsible  Date announced in plenary	AGRI 7.10.2010
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)  Date announced in plenary	REGI 7.10.2010
Rapporteur(s)  Date appointed	Elie Hoarau 28.10.2010
Rule 51 – joint committee meetings  Date announced in plenary
Discussed in committee	12.4.2011
Date adopted	26.5.2011
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	30 1 1
Members present for the final vote	François Alfonsi, Zuzana Brzobohatá, John Bufton, Alain Cadec, Salvatore Caronna, Tamás Deutsch, Elie Hoarau, Danuta Maria Hübner, Juozas Imbrasas, Seán Kelly, Mojca Kleva, Constanze Angela Krehl, Petru Constantin Luhan, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Iosif Matula, Erminia Mazzoni, Jan Olbrycht, Wojciech Michał Olejniczak, Markus Pieper, Nuno Teixeira, Michail Tremopoulos, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Kerstin Westphal
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Karima Delli, Cornelia Ernst, Karin Kadenbach, James Nicholson, Maurice Ponga, Elisabeth Schroedter, László Surján, Patrice Tirolien, Derek Vaughan

PROCEDURE

Title	Specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union
References	COM(2010)0498 – C7-0284/2010 – 2010/0256(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	23.9.2010
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary	AGRI 7.10.2010
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary	INTA 7.10.2010	BUDG 7.10.2010	REGI 7.10.2010
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed	Gabriel Mato Adrover 27.10.2010
Legal basis disputed        Date of JURI opinion	JURI 11.7.2011
Rule 51 – joint committee meetings	2.5.2011	27.6.2011
Date announced in plenary	26.9.2011
Discussed in committee	+: –: 0:	35 5 1
Date adopted Result of final vote	John Stuart Agnew, Richard Ashworth, Liam Aylward, José Bové, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă, Michel Dantin, Paolo De Castro, Albert Deß, Herbert Dorfmann, Robert Dušek, Lorenzo Fontana, Iratxe García Pérez, Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto, Martin Häusling, Esther Herranz García, Peter Jahr, Elisabeth Jeggle, Jarosław Kalinowski, Elisabeth Köstinger, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Mairead McGuinness, Krisztina Morvai, James Nicholson, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Wojciech Michał Olejniczak, Georgios Papastamkos, Marit Paulsen, Britta Reimers, Ulrike Rodust, Alfreds Rubiks, Giancarlo Scottà, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, Alyn Smith
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Luís Paulo Alves, Spyros Danellis, Vincenzo Iovine, Giovanni La Via, Astrid Lulling, Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, Jacek Włosowicz
Date tabled	4.10.2011