CELEX: 51994PC0643(02)
Language: en
Date: 1994-12-16
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs fattened as heavy carcases

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                       COM(94) 643 final
                                       Brussels, 16.12.1994
                                        94/0329 (CNS)
                          Proposal for a
                     COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)
                                                      94/0329 (CNS)
           amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89
             on the common organization of the market
                     in sheepmeat and goatmeat
                          Proposal for a
                     COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)
      amending Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs
                   fattened as heavy carcases
                  (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                            EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Introduction
The Council, in agreeing the 1994/95 price package, invited the
Commission to examine, with a view to making them applicable from 1995,
measures appropriate to :
    Italian and Greek problems linked to the establishment of premium
    rights due to the base year for premium rights being a transition
    year for them,
    the definition of the producer, in order to simplify the management
    of the premium regime for producer groups without undermining
    obligations on transfers without the transfer of the holding, in so
    far as the siphon is concerned, and
    a simplified control system for the rules governing the fattening
    of certain light lambs into heavy carcases in certains areas of
    Portugal and Spain.
1.  Italian and Greek problems linked to the introduction of premium
    quota rights.
The 1989 reform of the sheep sector provided for the unification of the
premium regime through the gradual elimination of regionally based
premia. This gradual elimination was foreseen for the period 1990 to
1992.
Prior to 1990, for the then Region 1 (Italy and Greece) , although
provision was made for the calculation of a regional premium, the level
of the market price ensured that no premium was, in fact, payable.
However, the premium payable in Region 2 (France) was payable, in a
forfaitaire manner, on ewes in Region 1, on condition that producers
could show to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the
lambs born of these ewes would not be slaughtered before two months of
age. This premium was also payable on female goats in Italy and Greece
at the reduced rate of 70% under the same condition.
The provision introduced by the 198 9 reform allowed Italy and Greece
(now Region 3 ) , to receive the premium calculated for the new region 2
(North of the Community except Great Britain) in 1990, under the same
forfaitaire condition as before.
However, although they provided for Italy and Greece to join the rest
of  the Community,      except Great Britain,     for regional   premium
calculation purposes from 1991 onwards, they also allowed both Italy
and Greece to opt for the 1990 system for premium calculation both in
1991 and 1992.
 ---pagebreak--- Italy, however, opted to join the other Member States for premium
calculation and payment purposes from 1991 onwards, while Greece
followed this option in 1992. This meant that, for Italy, from 1991 a
premium differentiated only between meat and milk producing ewes was
payable on all eligible ewes and at a reduced rate on all eligible
goats. For Greece this situation took effect in 1992.
Italy contends that, as it was the first year in which all ewes and
female goats were both eligible for and certain to be in receipt of a
premium, 1991 should be considered a transitional year. As both the
administration and certain producers were applying new regulations for
the first time, a considerable number of producers were either not in a
position to apply or did not apply for premium.
Greece also contends that 1991 was not a normal year and indeed that it
did not make the transition to the common premium system until 1992.
The extent to which producers with ewes entitled to premium in Italy
and in Greece in 1991 were not paid premium, has been investigated by
the Commission. This investigation has been on the basis in particular
of a comparison at regional level of claims paid in 1991 and 1992.
The result of these investigations can be summarized as follows :
In Italy the change in the regime took place at the same time as a
change in the timing of the application period for the premium.
Because of this producers were obliged to make two applications for
premium between January and March 1991, the first referring to the 1990
campaign (old regime) and the second to 1991 (new regime) . This
introduced an element of confusion among some producers and among
administrations in certain regions and resulted in the non presentation
of some applications in respect of 1991. The main regions concerned
are Campania Molise and Calabria'1' and in total up to 140,000 Rights
were lost for this reason.
In addition, the competent authorities in Sardinia made a serious error
in their interpretation of the new Community regulations and in fact
applied a "rule" that premium applications are systematically reduced
in size in most cases by 20%. This "rule" which does not form part of
the Community legislation was deleted in 1992 and , as a result, the
number of premia paid in 1992 to each producer on average rose by 15%.
However, its application in 1991 led to a loss of up to 460,000 rights
in Sardinia.
In Greece in respect of 1991, although the new regime was not yet
applicable, premium payments should have been representative of animals
eligible for premium under the new regime. In fact, in addition to
applications   for the region 2      (Northern Europe) premium,      the
possibility for applications for premium for other ewes (autonomous
premium) was added in April 1991 due to the development of the market
price in Greece at that time. However, very few producers made this
complementary application (9 000 applicants for 106,000 animals) in
comparison to producers for the region 2 premium (153,000 applicants
for 10,267,000 animals).
(1) In Campania, in 1992, premium applications     increased by  60% in
    comparison to 1991.            2
 ---pagebreak--- The reasons for the poor uptake of the second applications were as
follows :
     Producers practicing transhumance (12% of producers) had already
     left their own holdings in April 1991.
     The complementary application for the autonomous premium generally
     involved a small percentage of animals eligible for premium
      (estimated at about 10%) and a low premium level of about 2 ECU per
     h e a d ^ . However, it did double the retention period for flocks
     from 100 to 2 00 days and led many producers not to apply for the
     autonomous premium.
     Administrative authorities in certain areas ("nomos") refused to
     take the necessary steps for the issue of applications for the
     autonomous premium.
It is difficult to estimate the additional number of premium
applications which would have been made had the negative factors
outlined above not come into play. However, observation of the
difference in animals numbers paid premium between 1991 and 1992
 (600,000 head) provides a reasonable indication given that the census
figures supplied to the Commission remained virtually unchanged between
1991 and 1992.
As a result of the investigations the Commission now proposes that a
special maximum amount of 600,000 rights for Italy and 600,000 rights
for Greece be created to enable these Member States distribute new
rights to producers entrapped by the coincidence of the change in the
arrangements for premium eligibility and the introduction of the
premium rights regime based on premia granted to individual producers.
In this context, the Commission proposes that the identification of the
new rights created should be made before the end of the 1995 marketing
year and that, subject to verification by the Commission services of
the procedures involved, particularly in the main regions concerned,
the actual number of new rights created which could be lower than the
special amounts mentioned above, be subsequently added to the national
reserve of the two Member States concerned.
This measure requires the amendment of Article 5(c) 1 of Regulation
(EEC) No 3013/89.
(2) Increased in LFAs by 2.8 to 4 ECU per head in LFAs due to the rural
     world premium.                 ^,
 ---pagebreak--- 2.   Definition of the producer
In the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector both the producer and the producer
group are defined.
The producer may be a natural or legal person, a definition rather more
restrictive than in the beef sector where, in addition, a producer may
be a group whatever its internal composition.
A producer group in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector is any form of
group, association or cooperation involving reciprocal rights and
obligations between producers.
Producer groups as such never attrach premium rights.
Producer group applications for premium must be accompanied by a
breakdown of the number of premia applied for by each member and must
be signed by each member. Where sanctions are applied, all members are
subject to them.
Transfers of premium rights between members of a producer group are
subject to the siphon on transfers in the normal way.
This requirement to apply the siphon is seen as harsh by the United
Kingdom,    particularly  when  such transfers    occur within   family
partnerships. The adjustment of rights between producers in these and
similar partnerships is seen as the normal progression of a business.
It does not entail the removal of rights from the group but rather
their transfer within it.
Other Member States have overcome this problem by providing for within
family type transfers to be accomodated via an automatic mechanism
within the national reserve.
However, in order to avoid recourse to this type of mechanism and to
broaden the possibility of allowing transfers between producers within
producer groups, without the automatic triggering of the siphoning
mechanism, it will be necessary to decide on a set of conditions to
apply to such transfers within producer groups. These conditions, which
should be determined via the Management Committee, should include a
time scale for membership of the group together with provision for
supplementary national measures to protect the siphon.
In proposing these conditions, the Commission will be mindful of its
responsibility to protect the siphon on transfers which is the prime
means of feeding the national reserve.
This measure requires the amendment of Article 5a (4b) of Regulation
 (EEC) No 3013/89.
3.   Simplified control for the fattening of certain breeds of lambs as
     heavy carcases in certain areas of Spain and Portugal
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 establishes the definition of lambs
from milk producing ewes, fattened into heavy carcases.
Producers, more than 40% of whose lambs are fattened into heavy
carcases, may be granted the premium for ewes producing heavy lambs on
the ewes concerned, although these ewes are kept primarily for milk
rather than meat production.
 ---pagebreak--- This regulation also derogates from the definition in so far as the
weaning of lambs is concerned in respect of certain breeds of sheep
more orientated towards meat production in geographically limited parts
of Spain and Portugal, where it is common practice to raise lambs with
their ewes and after weaning of the lambs to milk the ewes for a
limited period for the purpose of cheese production.
Experience of the operation of the fattening of these lambs now shows
that the administrative requirements in relation to the control of
their fattening, outweigh the benefits accruing for the receipt of the
extra amount of premium. In practice, these lambs are normally
slaughtered at a carcase weight of 18-20 kg, which is considerably
greater than the liveweight requirement of 25 kg at the end of the
fattening period.
Against this background, the Commission proposes that the derogation
already in place with regard to these sheep, should be extended to
cover the other elements required by the Council Regulation.
Subsequent to the Council adopting this measure, the Commission, via
the Management Committee, will propose the modification of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2814/90, laying down the detailed rules for the
definition of lambs fattened as heavy carcases in order to ensure
adequate control is emplaced to ensure the correct application of the
measure.
4.  Financial implications
The financial implications arising from the granting of extra premium
rights in Italy and Greece, are forecast at 2 9 MECU per marketing year,
but at 4 MECU in 1995 and 29 MECU in 1996 and subsequent years.
The measures relating to the definition of the producer and the
fattening of lambs into heavy carcases, do not entrain any extra
expenditure on the sector.
Small and meidum enterprises. No implications.
Only the Union has power to act as regards the measures proposed. These
proposals modify two existing regulations.
 ---pagebreak---                                   Proposal for a
                           COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No
                  amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89      94/0329 (CNS)
                    on the common organization of the market
                            in sheepmeat and goatmeat
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in
particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(*),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament^) f
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(^),
Whereas   by   Regulation   (EEC)  No   2069/92  of 30   June  1992<4)   amending
                                5
Regulation   (EEC) No 3013/89( ), the Council imposed, with effect from the
1993 marketing year, an individual       limit per producer in respect of the
grant of the ewe and    goat premiums;
Whereas the grant of an individual limit per producer         for obtaining the
right to the premium has given rise to administrative difficulties in the
case of certain groups of producers, in particular family groups, during the
transfer of premium rights between members of the said groups; whereas,
therefore, for reasons of correct administration, provision should be made
for certain groups to be exempted, under certain conditions, from payment to
the national reserve of the percentage of rights provided for in the case of
a transfer of rights without transfer of holding; whereas that provision
must not lead to an increase in individual rights currently allocated in
each Member State, nor give rise to the formation of new producer groups
created with the sole aim of avoiding payment to the national reserve of the
percentage    of rights provided    for  in the case  of   a transfer  of  rights
without transfer of holding;
 (1) OJ No   L
 (2) OJ No   L
 (3) OJ No   L
 (4) OJ No   L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 59.
 (5) OJ No    L 289, 7.10.19 89, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation
      (EEC)  No 1886/94 (OJ No L 197, 30.7.1994, p. 30).
 ---pagebreak--- Whereas   the individual     limit was established on the basis of          the   total
amount of premiums       granted for the 1991 marketing year for each producer;
whereas in Italy and in Greece, because that marketing year was a year of
transition between two different premium systems, a number of producers were
not able to submit an application for a premium for the 1991 marketing year
for the number of eligible animals they held; whereas, in order to remedy
this situation, special reserves should be created for Italy and for Greece
corresponding to the estimated maximum number of rights which the producers
concerned were unable to claim; whereas the competent authorities of those
two Member States should initially be allowed to grant new rights up to the
limit   of   the  special    reserve  referred    to  above  and  then,    subject   to
verification    by   the Commission   of   the  correct   allocation  of   the   rights
granted, in particular in the regions most affected, the national reserves
will be    increased    for Italy and Greece by the sum of the rights newly
granted with effect from the 1995 marketing year;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to amend Regulation (EEC) No 3 013/8 9,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                      Article 1
1.    In Article     5a(4) (b) of  Regulation    (EEC) No   3013/89,   the   following
      subparagraph is hereby added:
      "However,    with   effect  from   the   1995  marketing   year   the   previous
     paragraph shall not apply to groups of producers, in the case of a
     transfer of rights between members, meeting conditions to be determined
     by the Commission in accordance with the procedure provided                for in
     Article 30."
 ---pagebreak--- 2.   In Article 5b(1), the following subparagraphs are hereby added:
     "In addition, for Italy and Greece a special reserve of 600,000 rights
     for each of those two Member States shall be established to permit the
     granting of additional rights to producers affected by the fact that
     the changes in the conditions of eligibility of animals for the premium
     and the introduction of individual limits on the guarantee per producer
     based  on  the number   of premiums    paid   for the marketing  year  both
     occured in 1991.
     After having cleary identified the producers affected by the situation
     referred to above, each of the two Member States concerned shall grant
     additional premium rights before the end of the 1995 marketing year up
     to the limit    of the special    reserve   referred  to above. Subject  to
     verification by the Commission, particularly in the regions principally
     affected, that the allocation of additional rights has been limited to
     the producers affected and that those producers do not obtain more
     rights than would have been granted them if the situation referred to
     above had not occured, the national reserve established pursuant to
     this  Article shall be increased by an amount corresponding to the sum
     of  the  rights   newly  granted;   that  increase   shall not  affect  the
     additional reserve referred to in paragraph 3."
                                   Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following          its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from the 1995 marketing year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.
Done at Brussels,                                         For the Council
 ---pagebreak---        FINANCIAL STATEMENT
       BUDGET HEADING:                                                                    APPROPRIATIONS:
       Item 2220                                                                          ECU 1 261 million
       Item 3805                                                                          ECU 328 million
                                                                                          Letter of amendment to 1995 PDB
2.     TITLE:
       Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 on the common organization of the market
       in sheepmeat and goatmeat
       LEGAL BASIS: Article 43 of the Treaty
       AIMS:
       (1) To make provision, under certain circumstances, whereby producer groups may be exempt from the requirement to
           transfer a percentage of their rights to the national reserve in cases where rights are transferred without transfer of a
           holding.
       (2) To create for Italy and Greece a special reserve containing a maximum number of potential rights which did not go
           to the producers concerned because the reference year (1991) was a transitional year for these Member States.
5.     FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:                                   PERIOD OF 12             CURRENT                FOLLOWING
                                                                     MONTHS               FINANCIAL               FINANCIAL
                                                                                             YEAR                    YEAR
                                                                                               (95)                   (96)
                                                                  (ECU million)          (ECU million)           (ECU million)
5.0.   EXPENDITURE                                                      29                                             29
       - CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET
         (REFUNDS/INTERVENTION)
       - NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
       - OTHER
                                                                    1997            1998               1999              2000
5.0.1. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE                                    ECU 29 m          ECU 29 m          ECU 29 m         ECU 29 m
5.1.1. ESTIMATED REVENUE
5.2.   METHOD OF CALCULATION:
       1995 marketing year (light ewes)
       Item 2220 Greece: 600 000 head x ECU 20.917/head x 0.8 x 1.207 = ECU 12.1 million (B)
                   Italy:    600 000 head x ECU 20.917/head x 0.8 x 1.207 = ECU 12.1 million (B)
                                                                                  ECU 24.2 million (B)
       An assumption is made that Italy will pay an advance of 30% in 1995, i.e. ECU 4 million
       Item 3805 Greece: 480 000 head x ECU 3.8/head x 1.207 =                    ECU 2.2 million (B)
                   Italy:    480 000 head x ECU 3.8/head x 1.207 =                ECU 2.2 million (B)
                                                                                  ECU 4.4 million (B)
       An assumption is made that neither Italy nor Greece will pay in 1995.
       Total for the measure in 1995 = ECU 28.6 million
6.0.   CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT
       CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET?                                                                                 YES
6.1.   CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT
       BUDGET?                                                                                                        YES/NO
6.2.   WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY?                                                                       YES/NO
6.3.   WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY?                                                                 YES
OBSERVATIONS       (1) The letter of amendment to the 1995 PDB already takes on board ECU 4 million so as to take account
                        of the Council Decision of July last to increase the national reserves of Italy and Greece.
                                                                \0
 ---pagebreak---                                   Proposal for a
                           COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No
             amending Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs
                           fattened as heavy carcases
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on
the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat^1', as last
amended  by  Regulation   (EC) No      /94^ 2 ', and  in particular   Article 4(2)
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas Council Regulation     (EEC) No 3901/89^3^     establishes the definition
of lambs fattened as heavy carcases which are produced by ewes producing
milk; whereas that Regulation, which lays down the conditions under which
the said definition applies, also lays down limited derogations with regard
to weaning for lambs belonging to a limited number of meat breeds and raised
in geographically well-defined areas; whereas experience obtained has shown
that the fact that those lambs are subject to the other conditions laid down
in that Regulation has resulted in the introduction of a control procedure
out of proportion to the objective, that is to guarantee that the lambs
achieve   a  sufficiently   high   weight    at  slaughter;   whereas,  therefore,
provision should be made for the derogations, currently restricted to the
weaning of the lambs, to be extended to other conditions to be determined,
 (1) OJ No L 289, 7.10.1989, p. 1.
 (2) OJ No L     ,            , p.
 (3) OJ No L 375, 23.12.1989, p. 4
                                        It
 ---pagebreak---  HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                  Article 1
The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Regulation    (EEC) No 3901/89 is
hereby replaced by the following:
 "However, derogations  from the first subparagraph  are possible for lambs
belonging to a limited number of meat breeds and raised in geographically
well-defined areas."
                                  Article 2
This Regulation   shall enter into force on the seventh day following its
publication in the official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall   apply to the premiums   to be paid  for the  1995  and subsequent
marketing years.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States. •
Done at Brussels,                                     For the Council
                                     11
 ---pagebreak---        FINANCIAL STATEMENT                                                            h-
1.     BUDGET HEADING:                                                                 APPROPRIATIONS:
       Item 2220                                                                       ECU 1.261 million
                                                                                       Letter of amendment to 1995 PDB
2.     TITLE:
       Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs fattened as heavy carcases
3.     LEGAL BASIS:
       Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89
4.     AIMS:
       To extend the currently limited derogations as regards weaning lambs belonging to a limited number of meat breeds
       and raised in geographically well-defined areas to other circumstances, to be established on administrative grounds
       during the weight checks at slaughter
       FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:                                PERIOD OF 12              CURRENT               FOLLOWING
                                                                 MONTHS                 FINANCIAL              FINANCIAL
                                                                                           YEAR                   YEAR
                                                                                             (95)                  (96)
                                                               (ECU million)           (ECU million)          (ECU million)
5.0.   EXPENDITURE
       - CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET
         (REFUNDS/INTERVENTION)
       - NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
       - OTHER
5.1.   REVENUE
       - OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC
         (LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES)
       - NATIONAL
                                                                 1997             1998              1999             2000
5.0.1. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE
5.1.1. ESTIMATED REVENUE
5.2.   METHOD OF CALCULATION:
6.0.   CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT
       CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET?                                                                               YES/NO
6.1.   CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT
       BUDGET?                                                                                                      YES/NO
6.2.   WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY?                                                                    YES/NO
6.3.    WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY?                                                             YES/NO
OBSERVATIONS
                                                              n
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                                                                      ISSN 0254-1475
                                                              COM (94) 643 final
                                                         DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                             03
                                Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-666-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-77-83907-4
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
L-2985 Luxembourg
                                                    it*.