Third Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products {SEC(2007) 368}
Date: 2007-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural expenditure, agricultural statistics, apiculture, honey, import

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.3.2007 
COM(2007) 131 final 

THIRD REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving 
general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products 

{SEC(2007) 368} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3 

WORLD SITUATION........................................................................................................ 3 

Production .................................................................................................................... 3 

Trade ............................................................................................................................ 4 

2.2.1.  Exports ......................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2.2. 

Imports ......................................................................................................................... 4 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

SITUATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION ........................................................................... 4 

Supply balance ............................................................................................................. 4 

Census (Table 9) .......................................................................................................... 5 

Consumption and promotion of apiculture products.................................................... 5 

IMPLEMENTATION OF HONEY PROGRAMMES ................................................................. 6 

Expenditure forecasts ................................................................................................... 6 

Implementation of expenditure (Tables 16-18, Figure 12) .......................................... 7 

Objective ...................................................................................................................... 8 

4.3.1.  Specific objectives ....................................................................................................... 8 

4.3.2.  Suggestions made by the Member States..................................................................... 9 

5. 

6. 

SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THOSE WORKING IN THE SECTOR ........................................... 10 

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... 10 

The report is accompanied by a Commission staff working paper (in French), which contains 
the tables and figures mentioned in this report. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving general conditions 
for  the  production  and  marketing  of  apiculture  products1  provides  for  a  report  on  the 
implementation of this Regulation to be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council 
every three years. This report fulfils that obligation. 

In January 2004, the Commission's second report on the implementation of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1221/972 was accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation aimed at making it 
more  effective.  It  was  noted  that  there  is  a  strong  similarity  between  the  apiculture 
programmes from one year to the next, and in view of this, it was thought appropriate to set up 
national programmes for periods of three years. 

Consequently,  Regulation  (EC)  No  1221/97  was  repealed  and  replaced  by  Regulation  (EC) 
No 797/2004.  Commission  Regulation 
laying  down  detailed 
implementation  rules  stipulates,  among  other  things,  the  contents  of  the  honey  programmes, 
the date on which programmes are to be notified, the allocation of Community part-financing 
and details of studies on the structure of the sector. 

(EC)  No  917/20043 

In  accordance  with  the  Regulation,  Member  States  submitted  notification  of  their  studies  on 
the structure of the sector (including hive censuses). 

It  is  important  to  note  that  all  Member  States  set  up  an  apiculture  programme,  which  shows 
their interest in this area and the needs of the European beekeeping sector. 

2. 

WORLD SITUATION 

The world’s major producer region is Asia, followed by Europe and North America (Table 1). 
Argentina has become the world's largest exporter, ahead of China, while the European Union 
(EU) is the largest importer. 

2.1. 

Production 

World  honey  production  reached  1 381 000  t  in  2005  (Table  1).  It  increased  by  9.2%  in  the 
period 2001–05, and has risen by 25% since 1996 (Figure 1). 

Since  2004,  as  a  result  of  its  enlargement  to  include  10  new  Member  States,  the  EU  has 
become  the  world's  second  largest  producer.  In  2005,  the  EU  produced  174 000  t  of  honey 
(Table 2)  (13%  of  world  production),  while  China  consolidated  its  position  as  the  world's 
largest  producer  with  305 000  t  of  honey,  an  increase  of  20%  on  2001.  The  other  main 
producers are the United States of America and Argentina, with honey production in the region 
of 85 000 t each. 

The two new EU Member States are also major honey producers (in the region of 19 000 t for 
Romania and 8 000 t for Bulgaria).  

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 125, 28.4.2004, p. 1. 
COM(2004) 30 final. 
OJ L 163, 30.4.2004, p. 83. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2. 

Trade 

World trade accounts for about a quarter of total honey production. 

2.2.1.  Exports 

Global exports of honey were approximately 325 000 t in 2005 (Table 3). Argentina exported 
108 000 t  in  2005  and  became  the  single  largest  exporter  (over  30%  of  world  trade),  with 
exports  up  by  more  than  40%  on  previous  years.  China,  which  has  traditionally  been  the 
largest exporter, has seen its exports fall quite sharply since 2001 (88 000 t in 2005 compared 
with 107 000 t in 2001).  

Of  the  remaining  exporting  countries,  new  countries  such  as  India  have  developed  foreign 
trade (from 3 000 t in 2001 to 17 000 t in 2005). Conversely, Brazil has considerably reduced 
its exports, mainly for health reasons (from 21 000 t in 2004 to 6 000 t in 2005). Since 2006, 
Brazil  is  no  longer  an  authorised  exporter  to  the  EU.  Turkey  has  also  cut  its  exports 
dramatically. 

2.2.2. 

Imports 

The main import market is still the EU, which, with 155 000 t (Table 4), absorbed about 45% 
of  global  honey  imports  in  2005.  North  America  is  the  other  major  importing  region 
(114 000 t). Germany and the United Kingdom accounted for almost 70% of total imports into 
the EU in 2005 (Table 6). 

Global  imports  have  been  rising  steadily  since  the  end  of  the  1970s  as  a  result  of  increased 
consumption of natural and dietary products, efforts on the part of certain traders to introduce 
speciality  honeys  or  low-price  honey,  usually  in the  form  of  blends,  and  increased  industrial 
use of honey. 

3. 

SITUATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 

3.1. 

Supply balance 

The EU has a honey deficit and usually has to import about half of the honey consumed, self-
sufficiency  in  2004/05  being  54.2%  (Table  5).  Nevertheless,  self-sufficiency  has  improved 
since EU enlargement to 25 Member States, as before this it was about 45%. 

The  Union’s  three  major  honey  producers  are  Spain,  Germany  and  Hungary,  with  32 000 t, 
26 000 t and 19 500 t respectively in 2004/05. Honey production in the 10 Member States that 
joined in 2004 is approximately 43 000 t, i.e. 25% of total EU production. Of these Member 
States, Hungary and Poland are the largest producers. 

The EU imports approximately 150 000 t of honey each year. Argentina remains the European 
Union's  main  supplier,  with  71 000 t  (almost  50%  of  total  Community  imports  in  2005), 
followed by Mexico and Brazil (Figure 5, Table 6). However, imports from Mexico have been 
falling since 2000, in spite of a tariff quota of 30 000 t at reduced duties. 

Imports from Romania and Bulgaria account for a little over 10 000 t. 

Community exports to third countries account for only a little over 6 000 t, i.e. 3.5% of total 
production  in  2005  (Table  7).  The  main  destination  of  these  exports  is  Switzerland 
(approximately 1 500 t in 2005). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Import prices 

The  average  price  of  imports into  the  EU  has  dropped  considerably  since  2003,  falling  from 
EUR 2.31/kg to EUR 1.29/kg (Table 8a). This price is low, but is in line with price levels at 
the beginning of the 2000s (before the ban on imports of Chinese honey). In 2003, prices were 
exceptionally  high,  particularly  because  Chinese  honey,  which  cost  less  than  EUR 1/kg,  was 
no longer available on the Community market, the world's largest import market. 

The  figures  available  for  2006  show  that  import  prices  are  once  again  rising  slightly 
(EUR 1.34/kg). 

Export prices 

The average export price of Community honey has also been falling since 2004, but remains 
relatively high. At EUR 3.63/kg (Table 8b), the average price is well above that of imported 
honey.  This  is  because  European  honey  is  often  high-quality  honey  with  specific  desirable 
organoleptic qualities (monofloral honeys). 

3.2. 

Census (Table 9) 

In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  797/2004,  Member  States  submitted 
notification of a study on the structure of the sector at the same time as their programmes. As 
these programmes have been triennial since 2004, census figures are only communicated to the 
Commission every third year.  

According  to  the  data  passed  on  by  Member  States,  the  total  number  of  beekeepers  in  the 
Community is 593 000, 17 986 of whom are considered to be professional beekeepers (at least 
150 hives).  

The total number of hives is 11 631 300, with 4 321 901 belonging to professional beekeepers. 
In other words, 3% of the beekeepers own nearly 40% of the hives. The number of hives has 
increased by 2 754 091 since 2003. This increase is exclusively due to EU enlargement, as the 
number  of  hives  recorded  in  the  10  new  Member  States  is  2 870 872.  The  increase  in  the 
number of hives is broadly in line with the increase in production (up by approximately 26%). 

The Member States with the most hives are Spain, Greece, France and Italy. Of the Member 
States that joined the EU in 2004, Poland and Hungary recorded the most hives. 

In terms of the ratio of professionally owned hives to the total number of hives, the highest rate 
of professional beekeeping is found in Spain, with 76%, followed by Greece. 

In absolute terms, most professional beekeepers are concentrated in the following five Member 
States: Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Hungary. 

3.3. 

Consumption and promotion of apiculture products 

Annual  per  capita  honey  consumption  was  0.7  kg  in  2005.  There  has  been  no  significant 
increase in the last few years. 

The  Member  State  in  which  the  most  honey  is  consumed  is  Greece  (1.7  kg/year  per  capita), 
followed by Austria, Germany and Spain. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
To enable Community honey to compete against global competition, apiculture products have, 
under  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  422/2005,4  for  the  first  time,  become  eligible  for 
measures  to  provide  information  on,  and  to  promote,  agricultural  products  on  the  internal 
market. 

The  main  objectives  are  to  inform  consumers  of  the  diversity,  the  organoleptic  qualities  and 
the production conditions of Community apiculture products, and to help them to understand 
the labelling. 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF HONEY PROGRAMMES 

4.1. 

Expenditure forecasts 

Expenditure by Member State 

As provided for in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004, the Member States notify their 
programmes  to  the  Commission once every three years. The  programmes notified must state 
estimated costs and provide a financing plan. 

The  available  Community  funds  are  allocated  on  the  basis  of  these  official  notifications,  in 
accordance  with  the  total  number  of  hives  in  the  Community,  as  set  out  in  Annex  I  to 
Regulation  (EC)  No  917/2004.  The  hives  belonging  to  each  Member  State,  calculated  as  a 
percentage  of  the  total  number  of  hives,  therefore  determine  the  theoretical  maximum 
percentage  of  the  budget  to  which  each  Member  State  is  entitled,  before  any  allocation  of 
amounts not requested in the expenditure forecasts. 

For  the  2004–2006  period  (Table  9),  the  Member  State  theoretically  entitled  to  the  largest 
share was Spain (21.2%), followed by Greece (11.9%), France (9.9%), Italy (9.5%) and Poland 
(8.2%),  etc.  Unrequested  funds  enabled  two  Member  States  in  particular  to  benefit  from  an 
increase in their budgetary allowance over and above their theoretical share. The two Member 
States in question were Italy (13.7% of the budget for 9.4% of the hives) and Hungary (8.2% 
of the budget for 7.5% of the hives).  

For  programmes  running  in  2005,  three  Member  States  (Spain,  Greece  and  Italy)  were 
allocated almost 47% of the available Community funds. Add to this France and Hungary, and 
these  five  Member  States  accounted  for  64%  of  funds  for  60%  of  the  hives.  Therefore,  the 
Member States with the most hives are indeed the ones that submit the most requests for part-
financed programmes. 

There has been  no  substantial change in the way the budget is used,  either as  a result of the 
amendment to the Council Regulation in 2004 or as a result of enlargement. However, some 
Member  States  have  seen  their  theoretical  share  decrease.  This  has  been  the  case  for  Spain, 
whose share fell from 27% in 2003 to 21% for programmes for 2005–07. As the overall budget 
has increased (from EUR 16.5 million to EUR 23  million) to take enlargement into account, 
this has had no affect on Spain's budgetary allocation in real terms. On the contrary, despite the 
drop 
(from 
EUR 4 377 000 in 2003 to EUR 4 890 000 in 2005). 

theoretical  percentage  share,  expenditure 

forecasts  have 

increased 

in 

4 

OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 5. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Expenditure by type of measure 

Tables  11,  12  and  13  show  the  expenditure  forecasts  by  type  of  measure  for  each  Member 
State for 2005–07.  

It should be borne in mind that when the Council Regulation was amended in 2004, a new type 
of measure was introduced: namely, aid to support the restocking of hives. 

In  2005  and  2006,  the  most  widely  used  measure  remained  varroasis  control  (between  33% 
and 35%, amounting to over EUR 8 million), followed by technical assistance (26% or almost 
EUR 6 million),  rationalisation  of  transhumance  (19%  or  almost  EUR 4.5 million)  honey 
analyses (8% or approximately EUR 1.8 million), restocking of hives (between 6% and 7%, or 
EUR 1.5 million) and finally applied research (5% or approximately EUR 1 million). 

Compared  to  previous  years,  there  has  been  quite  a  considerable  decrease  in  the  funds 
allocated  to  varroasis  control,  although  it  still  remained  the  most  widely  used  measure, 
accounting  for  more  than  42%  of  the  budget  for  2001-02.  This  is  mainly  because  of  the 
introduction  of  measures  for  restocking  of  hives  and  a  slightly  higher  uptake  for  honey 
analyses. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Varroasis control was applied for in all programmes without exception. 

Technical  assistance  measures  were  applied  for  by  almost  all  Member  States.  The 
Member State with the largest forecast expenditure in this area was Italy (more than 
EUR 1 million), while Spain planned to spend just a little over 10% of its budget on 
this. 

Rationalisation of transhumance was applied for by 15 Member States, including all 
the southern European countries (where the rate of professional beekeeping is highest 
and  there  is  also  a  rich  diversity  of  melliferous  plants  with  different  flowering 
periods).  

Spain  spent  more  than  40%  of  its  budget  on  rationalisation  of  transhumance,  which 
was almost 50% of total Community expenditure on this.  

Honey  analyses  were  included  in  the  programmes  of  20  Member  States.  Austria, 
Poland and Spain made most use of these. 

Even  though  restocking  of  hives  was  a  recent  addition,  15  Member  States  showed 
interest  in  this.  With  more  than  EUR  500 000,  France  was  the  main  applicant.  This 
stems from a particular awareness of the decline in the bee population. 

Finally,  measures  to  promote  applied  research  formed  part  of  15  national 
programmes.  Italian  and  French  applications  accounted  for  50%  of  the  total  amount 
applied for.  

4.2. 

Implementation of expenditure (Tables 16-18, Figure 12) 

The  honey  programmes  must  be  implemented  before  31  August  each  year,  and  the  relevant 
payments made by 15 October at the latest.  

In 2006, provisional expenditure under the Member States' programmes came to 82.5% of the 
total  planned  expenditure;  that  is  to  say,  approximately  EUR  19  million  were  spent  out  of  a 
total  of  EUR  23  million.  As  Member  States  can  pay  some  expenses  later,  the  definitive 
percentage use of funds for programmes in 2006 should be higher. For programmes in 2004, 
which  preceded  EU  enlargement,  the  percentage  used  was  84%.  For  programmes  in  2005, 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
which  were  the  first  ones  to  be  implemented  under  the  triennial  system,  the  percentage  was 
slightly  lower  (78%).  This  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  new  Member  States  had  no 
experience  with  these  programmes,  and  national  legislative  and  administrative  procedures 
sometimes  took  a  long  time  to  set  up.  Furthermore,  most  of  these  Member  States  saw  their 
percentage  use  of  funds  improve  appreciably  in  2006,  which  was  the  case  for  Hungary  and 
Poland in particular. This shows how easy these programmes are to operate. We can expect the 
percentage used to be even higher for programmes in 2007. 

During 2005, 14 Member States used more than 80% of their available budget as opposed to 
13 Member States in 2006 (this figure should increase). 

Of the biggest beneficiaries, Spain used 95% of its budget in 2005 and is already close to 80% 
for 2006, while Greece used more than 80% (despite a reduction in the national budget) and 
Italy and France used more than 90%. As far as the 10 new Member States are concerned, in 
general the percentage used is significantly better for programmes in 2006 than for 2005, when 
these  programmes  were  first  established.  For  example,  the  percentage  used  by  Hungary 
increased  from  29%  to  88%,  and  for  Poland  the  increase  was  from  51%  to  more  than  72%, 
which  is  very  encouraging  as  regards  the  possibility  of  optimum  use  by  programmes  in  the 
EU-27. 

Only one Member State, Slovakia, did not use any of the budget it had been allocated.  

4.3. 

Objective 

All  of  the  measures  put  forward  by  Member  States  as  part  of  their  national  programmes  are 
eligible,  provided  that  they  are  undertaken  solely  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  one  of  the 
eligible measures.  

4.3.1. 

Specific objectives 

Technical  assistance  is  designed  to  enhance  the  efficiency  of  production  and  marketing  by 
introducing  better  techniques.  Courses  and  other  training  measures  for  beekeepers  and  those 
responsible for groupings or cooperatives relate in particular to such areas as breeding and disease 
prevention, collection and packaging, transport and marketing.  

The aim of varroasis control is to reduce the expenditure incurred in treating hives or to ensure 
that part of the cost is met. This parasitic disease results in a reduction in  yield and the loss of 
entire bee colonies if not treated. Weakening of colonies by varroasis is one of the reasons for 
the incidence of related diseases. Varroasis cannot be completely eradicated, and the only way to 
avoid its consequences is to treat hives with approved products.  

Rationalisation of transhumance is intended to assist with managing the movement of hives in 
the Community and with providing locations where high concentrations of beekeepers can gather 
during the flowering season. Transhumance management can be facilitated by such measures as a 
transhumance register, investment in equipment and maps of honey varieties. 

Support measures for carrying out analyses of honey are intended to improve the marketing of 
honey.  Financing  of  analyses  of  the  physico-chemical  properties  of  honey  according  to  its 
botanical  origin  provides  beekeepers  with  precise  knowledge  of  the  quality  of  the  honey,  and 
enables them to get a higher price for their product. 

The  restocking  of  hives  makes  it  possible  to  compensate  for  losses  of  bees,  and  therefore  of 
production, by funding activities to promote queen production or purchasing of bee colonies.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Applied research to improve honey quality, and the dissemination of the results of this research, 
can help increase producer incomes. 

4.3.2. 

Suggestions made by the Member States 

The majority of Member States responded to the Commission's request for comments on the 
implementation of programmes. 

Overall,  Member  States  are  satisfied  with  the  way  in  which  these  programmes  are  run  and 
there have been no persistent requests to amend Regulation (EC) No 797/2004. The fact that 
programmes are scheduled to run for a period of three years is seen as an improvement which 
makes  it  possible  to  anticipate  and  plan  certain  measures.  The  request  that  Member  States 
made most often was for greater flexibility in adjusting programmes. 

Implementing Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 provides for changes to be made to the content of 
programmes during the course of the year, as Article 6 states that the budget allocated to each 
of  the  six  eligible  measures  may  be  increased  or  reduced  by  a  maximum  of  20%  without 
seeking  the  opinion  of  the  Management  Committee.  If  a  change  exceeds  this  limit,  it  is 
possible  to  make  adjustments  to  the  programme  by  seeking  the  opinion  of  the  Management 
Committee (Article 7). 

The other main suggestions were as follows: 

– 

addition of measures to increase honey consumption, as well as a detailed description 
of the eligible measures. 

As  honey  has  been  added  to  the  list  of  products  eligible  for  measures  to  provide 
information  on,  and  to  promote,  agricultural  products  on  the  internal  market,  the 
Commission takes the view that it would not be advisable to accede to this request. A 
detailed description of what each eligible measure might consist of would reduce the 
flexibility  of  these  programmes,  whereas  Member  States  are  asking  for  greater 
flexibility. Each programme, and therefore each measure put forward, is analysed by 
the  Commission,  the  main  eligibility  criterion  being  to  ensure  that  all  approved 
measures  are  undertaken  solely  to  achieve  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  measures 
provided for in the Regulation. An exhaustive list of "acceptable" initiatives for each 
measure is therefore not desirable; 

some  Member  States  are  asking  for  measures  to  support  laboratories  carrying  out 
analyses  of  the  physico-chemical  properties  of  honey  to  be  extended  to  other 
apiculture products (royal jelly, pollen, etc.). 

In  view  of  the  limited  budget,  this  does  not  appear  to  be  a  priority,  particularly 
considering the volumes sold. The cost of these analyses can be borne more easily by 
high added-value products than by honey; 

control of bee diseases other than varroasis. It must be clear that it is not the goal of 
this  scheme  to  create  a  health  policy  in  the  sector.  It  was  precisely  to  avoid  any 
confusion  with  veterinary  policy  that  the  2004  amendment  made  diseases  related  to 
varroasis ineligible for apiculture programmes; 

expenditure not implemented by 31 August of the year in question to be carried over 
to the following year. Any such carry-over is neither desirable nor possible in view of 
the principle of the annual nature of the budget. It would be likely that as a result less 
optimum use would be made of programmes in the first and second years.; 

– 

– 

– 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

purchasing hives. If it can be shown that such a measure can help achieve the aim of 
restocking hives, it could be assessed by the Commission when the programmes are 
submitted; 

improvement  of  the  statistical  instrument.  Member  States  already  have  to  submit 
notification of a study on the structure of the sector. It would be cumbersome to carry 
out  an  annual  review  of  the  statistics,  and  this  would  not  be  desirable.  The 
Commission regularly notifies traders of trade statistics; 

making it possible for projects of a European nature to be carried out across several 
Member  States.  The  Commission  recognises  the  benefit  of  such  projects  and  points 
out that they may indeed be approved, as there is nothing to prevent several Member 
States  collaborating  on  a  single  project.  As  regards  funding,  Member  States 
participating  in  the  project  should  each  contribute  from  the  budget  they  have  been 
allocated  individually.  Reallocating  unrequested  funds  specifically  to  these  projects 
would run counter to administrative simplification.  

Finally, some other more specific measures were mentioned, but do not justify amending the 
Regulation. The eligibility of any specific measures would be assessed when the programmes 
are analysed and before they are accepted.  

5. 

SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THOSE WORKING IN THE SECTOR 

Both  the  industry  (FEEDM)  and  the  producers  (COPA-COGECA)  recognise  the  benefit  that 
the  apiculture  programmes  bring  in  terms  of  real  support  for  the  sector.  They  emphasise  the 
fact that this is the only instrument available to the sector. 

The following suggestions have been made by the sector: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

ensure  greater  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  the  sector  when  drawing  up 
programmes; 

maintain a good statistical tool; 

develop research programmes and coordinate the results better;  

provide for greater flexibility in changing the budget allocated to different measures 
during the course of the programme;  

make  it  possible  for  projects  of  a  European  nature  to  be  carried  out  across  several 
Member States. 

6. 

CONCLUSION 

Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 seems to be yielding positive results in the beekeeping sector, 
both for Member States and for beekeepers. This sector is characterised by a wide diversity of 
production conditions, and by the dispersion and variety of players both at the production and 
at the marketing stage. 

The priority measures in the Regulation, although limited from the budget point of view, have 
been valuable in terms of quality. The triennial nature of the programmes since 2004 seems to 
have brought greater flexibility when it comes to preparation and implementation.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
In  view  of  the  contents  of  this  report,  the  Commission  considers  it  inadvisable  to  amend 
Regulation  (EC)  No 797/2004.  However,  the  flexibility  to  be  able  to  make  changes  to 
programmes during the course of the year without affecting the total budget allocated to each 
Member State, as requested both by the majority of Member States and by the traders, could 
form the subject of a draft amendment to Commission Regulation (EC) No 917/2004. 

EN 

11 

   EN