Article 110 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
1. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down necessary measures concerning: (a) the information to be provided in the product specification with regard to the link between the geographical area and the final product; (b) the making of decisions on protection or rejection available to the public; (c) the establishment and the maintenance of the register referred to in Article 104; (d) the conversion from protected designation of origin to protected geographical indication; (e) the submission of trans-border applications. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). 2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down necessary measures concerning the procedure for the examination of applications for protection or for the approval of an amendment of a designation of origin or a geographical indication, as well as the procedure for requests for objection, cancellation, or conversion, and the submission of information related to existing protected wine names, in particular with respect to: (a) models for documents and the transmission format; (b) time limits; (c) the details of the facts, evidence and supporting documents to be submitted in support of an application or a request.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 110 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure):
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down necessary measures concerning: (a) the information to be provided in the product specification with regard to the link between the geographical area and the final product; (b) the making of decisions on protection or rejection available to the public; (c) the establishment and the maintenance of the register referred to in Article 104; (d) the conversion from protected designation of origin to protected geographical indication; (e) the submission of trans-border applications. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down necessary measures concerning the procedure for the examination of applications for protection or for the approval of an amendment of a designation of origin or a geographical indication, as well as the procedure for requests for objection, cancellation, or conversion, and the submission of information related to existing protected wine names, in particular with respect to: (a) models for documents and the transmission format; (b) time limits; (c) the details of the facts, evidence and supporting documents to be submitted in support of an application or a request. Subsection 3 Traditional terms
Article 111 Other implementing powers
Where an objection is deemed inadmissible, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act rejecting it as inadmissible. That implementing act shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3). Subsection 3 Traditional terms
Article 112 Definition
A "traditional term" means a term traditionally used in Member States for the products referred to in Article 92(1) to designate: (a) that the product has a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication under Union or national law; or (b) the production or ageing method or the quality, colour, type of place, or a particular event linked to the history of the product with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication.
Article 113 Protection
1. A protected traditional term may only be used for a product which has been produced in conformity with the definition provided for in Article 112. Traditional terms shall be protected against unlawful use. 2. Traditional terms shall be protected, only in the language and for the categories of grape vine products claimed in the application, against: (a) any misuse of the protected term, including where it is accompanied by an expression such as "style", "type", "method", "as produced in", "imitation", "flavour", "like" or similar; (b) any other false or misleading indication as to the nature, characteristics or essential qualities of the product, placed on the inner or outer packaging, advertising material or documents relating to it; (c) any other practice likely to mislead the consumer, in particular to give the impression that the wine qualifies for the protected traditional term. 3. Traditional terms shall not become generic in the Union.
Article 114 Delegated powers
1. In order to ensure an adequate level of protection, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 regarding the language and the spelling of the traditional term to be protected. 2. In order to ensure the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of producers and operators, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 establishing: (a) the type of applicants that may apply for the protection of a traditional term; (b) the conditions of validity of an application for protection of a traditional term; (c) the grounds for objecting to a proposed recognition of a traditional term; (d) the scope of the protection, the relationship with trade marks, protected traditional terms, protected designations of origin or geographical indications, homonyms, or certain wine grape names; (e) the grounds for cancellation of a traditional term; (f) the date of submission of an application or of a request for objection or cancellation; (g) the procedures to be followed in respect of an application for the protection of a traditional term, including scrutiny by the Commission, the objection procedure and the procedures on cancellation and modification. 3. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of trade between the Union and certain third countries, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the conditions under which traditional terms may be used on products from third countries and providing for derogations from Article 112 and Article 113(2).
Article 115 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
1. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down necessary measures concerning the procedure for the examination of applications for protection or for the approval of a modification of a traditional term, as well as the procedure for requests for objection or cancellation, in particular with respect to: (a) models for documents and the transmission format; (b) time limits; (c) the details of the facts, evidence and supporting documents to be submitted in support of the application or request; (d) detailed rules on making protected traditional terms available to the public. 2. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts accepting or rejecting an application for protection of a traditional term or a request for a modification of the protected term or the cancellation of the protection of a traditional term. 3. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts providing for the protection of traditional terms in respect of which an application for protection has been accepted, in particular by classifying them in accordance with Article 112 and by publishing a definition and/or the conditions of use. 4. The implementing acts referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 116 Other implementing powers
Where an objection is deemed inadmissible, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act rejecting it as inadmissible. That implementing act shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3).
Article 117 Definition
For the purposes of this Section: (a) "labelling" means any words, particulars, trade marks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to a given product; (b) "presentation" means any information conveyed to consumers by virtue of the packaging of the product concerned, including the form and type of bottles.
Article 118 Applicability of horizontal rules
Save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation, Council Directive 89/396/EEC ( 36 ), Directive 2000/13/EC, Directive 2007/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 37 ), Directive 2008/95/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 shall apply to the labelling and presentation. The labelling of the products referred to in points 1 to 11, 13, 15 and 16 of Part II of Annex VII may not be supplemented by any particulars other than those provided for in this Regulation unless those particulars satisfy the requirements of Directive 2000/13/EC or Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011.
Article 119 Compulsory particulars
1. Labelling and presentation of the products referred to in points 1 to 11, 13, 15 and 16 of Part II of Annex VII marketed in the Union or for export shall contain the following compulsory particulars: (a) the designation for the category of the grapevine product in accordance with Part II of Annex VII; (b) for wines with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication: (i) the term "protected designation of origin" or "protected geographical indication"; and (ii) the name of the protected designation of origin or the protected geographical indication; (b) for wines with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication: (i) the term "protected designation of origin" or "protected geographical indication"; and (ii) the name of the protected designation of origin or the protected geographical indication; (c) the actual alcoholic strength by volume; (d) an indication of provenance; (e) an indication of the bottler or, in the case of sparkling wine, aerated sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine or quality aromatic sparkling wine, the name of the producer or vendor; (f) an indication of the importer in the case of imported wines; and (g) in the case of sparkling wine, aerated sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine or quality aromatic sparkling wine, an indication of the sugar content. 2. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, the reference to the category of the grapevine product may be omitted for wines whose labels include the name of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication. 3. By way of derogation from point (b) of paragraph 1, the reference to the terms "protected designation of origin" or "protected geographical indication" may be omitted in the following cases: (a) where a traditional term in accordance with point (a) of Article 112 is displayed on the label in accordance with the product specification referred to in Article 94(2); (b) in exceptional and duly justified circumstances to be determined by the Commission by means of delegated acts adopted in accordance with Article 227 in order to ensure compliance with existing labelling practices.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 119 Compulsory particulars):
1. Labelling and presentation of the products referred to in points 1 to 11, 13, 15 and 16 of Part II of Annex VII marketed in the Union or for export shall contain the following compulsory particulars: (a) the designation for the category of the grapevine product in accordance with Part II of Annex VII; (b) for wines with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication: (i) the term "protected designation of origin" or "protected geographical indication"; and (ii) the name of the protected designation of origin or the protected geographical indication; (c) the actual alcoholic strength by volume; (d) an indication of provenance; (e) an indication of the bottler or, in the case of sparkling wine, aerated sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine or quality aromatic sparkling wine, the name of the producer or vendor; (f) an indication of the importer in the case of imported wines; and (g) in the case of sparkling wine, aerated sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine or quality aromatic sparkling wine, an indication of the sugar content. 2. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, the reference to the category of the grapevine product may be omitted for wines whose labels include the name of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication. 3. By way of derogation from point (b) of paragraph 1, the reference to the terms "protected designation of origin" or "protected geographical indication" may be omitted in the following cases: (a) where a traditional term in accordance with point (a) of Article 112 is displayed on the label in accordance with the product specification referred to in Article 94(2); (b) in exceptional and duly justified circumstances to be determined by the Commission by means of delegated acts adopted in accordance with Article 227 in order to ensure compliance with existing labelling practices.
Article 120 Optional particulars
1. Labelling and presentation of the products referred to in points 1 to 11, 13, 15 and 16 of Part II of Annex VII may, in particular, contain the following optional particulars: (a) the vintage year; (b) the name of one or more wine grape varieties; (c) in the case of wines other than those referred to in point (g) of Article 119(1), terms indicating the sugar content; (d) for wines with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, traditional terms in accordance with point (b) of Article 112; (e) the Union symbol indicating the protected designation of origin or the protected geographical indication; (f) terms referring to certain production methods; (g) for wines bearing a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, the name of another geographical unit that is smaller or larger than the area underlying the designation of origin or geographical indication. 2. Without prejudice to Article 100(3), as regards the use of particulars referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article for wines without a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication: (a) Member States shall introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions to ensure certification, approval and verification procedures so as to guarantee the veracity of the information concerned; (b) Member States may, on the basis of non-discriminatory and objective criteria and with due regard to fair competition, for wine produced from wine grape varieties on their territory, draw up lists of excluded wine grape varieties, in particular if: (i) there is a risk of confusion for consumers as to the true origin of the wine due to the fact that the wine grape variety forms an integral part of an existing protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication; (ii) checks would not be cost-effective due to the fact that the given wine grape variety represents a very small part of the Member State vineyard; (b) Member States may, on the basis of non-discriminatory and objective criteria and with due regard to fair competition, for wine produced from wine grape varieties on their territory, draw up lists of excluded wine grape varieties, in particular if: (i) there is a risk of confusion for consumers as to the true origin of the wine due to the fact that the wine grape variety forms an integral part of an existing protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication; (ii) checks would not be cost-effective due to the fact that the given wine grape variety represents a very small part of the Member State vineyard; (c) mixtures of wines from different Member States shall not give rise to labelling of the wine grape variety unless the Member States concerned agree otherwise and ensure the feasibility of the relevant certification, approval and verification procedures.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 120 Optional particulars):
1. Labelling and presentation of the products referred to in points 1 to 11, 13, 15 and 16 of Part II of Annex VII may, in particular, contain the following optional particulars: (a) the vintage year; (b) the name of one or more wine grape varieties; (c) in the case of wines other than those referred to in point (g) of Article 119(1), terms indicating the sugar content; (d) for wines with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, traditional terms in accordance with point (b) of Article 112; (e) the Union symbol indicating the protected designation of origin or the protected geographical indication; (f) terms referring to certain production methods; (g) for wines bearing a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, the name of another geographical unit that is smaller or larger than the area underlying the designation of origin or geographical indication. 2. Without prejudice to Article 100(3), as regards the use of particulars referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article for wines without a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication: (a) Member States shall introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions to ensure certification, approval and verification procedures so as to guarantee the veracity of the information concerned; (b) Member States may, on the basis of non-discriminatory and objective criteria and with due regard to fair competition, for wine produced from wine grape varieties on their territory, draw up lists of excluded wine grape varieties, in particular if: (i) there is a risk of confusion for consumers as to the true origin of the wine due to the fact that the wine grape variety forms an integral part of an existing protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication; (ii) checks would not be cost-effective due to the fact that the given wine grape variety represents a very small part of the Member State vineyard; (c) mixtures of wines from different Member States shall not give rise to labelling of the wine grape variety unless the Member States concerned agree otherwise and ensure the feasibility of the relevant certification, approval and verification procedures.
Article 121 Languages
1. The compulsory and optional particulars referred to in Articles 119 and 120 shall, where expressed in words, appear in one or more official language of the Union. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the name of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication or a traditional term as referred to in point (b) of Article 112 shall appear on the label in the language or languages for which the protection applies. In the case of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication or a national specific designation using a non-Latin alphabet, the name may also appear in one or more official languages of the Union.
Article 122 Delegated powers
1. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the wine sector, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules and restrictions on: (a) the presentation and use of labelling particulars other than those provided for in this Section; (b) compulsory particulars concerning: (i) terms to be used to formulate the compulsory particulars and their conditions of use; (ii) terms referring to a holding and the conditions for their use; (iii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to compulsory particulars; (iv) provisions allowing further derogations in addition to those referred to in Article 119(2) as regards the omission of the reference to the category of the grapevine product; and (v) provisions on the use of languages; (b) compulsory particulars concerning: (i) terms to be used to formulate the compulsory particulars and their conditions of use; (ii) terms referring to a holding and the conditions for their use; (iii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to compulsory particulars; (iv) provisions allowing further derogations in addition to those referred to in Article 119(2) as regards the omission of the reference to the category of the grapevine product; and (v) provisions on the use of languages; (c) optional particulars concerning: (i) terms to be used to formulate the optional particulars and their conditions of use; (ii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to optional particulars; (c) optional particulars concerning: (i) terms to be used to formulate the optional particulars and their conditions of use; (ii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to optional particulars; (d) the presentation concerning: (i) the conditions of use of certain bottle shapes, and a list of certain specific bottle shapes; (ii) the conditions of use of "sparkling wine"-type bottles and closures; (iii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to presentation; (iv) provisions on the use of languages. (d) the presentation concerning: (i) the conditions of use of certain bottle shapes, and a list of certain specific bottle shapes; (ii) the conditions of use of "sparkling wine"-type bottles and closures; (iii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to presentation; 2. In order to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of operators, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules as regards temporary labelling and presentation of wines bearing a designation of origin or a geographical indication, where that designation of origin or geographical indication fulfils the necessary requirements. 3. In order to ensure that economic operators are not prejudiced, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning transitional provisions as regards wine placed on the market and labelled in accordance with the relevant rules applying before 1 August 2009. 4. In order to take account of the specific characteristics in trade between the Union and certain third countries, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning derogations from this Section as regards products to be exported where required by the law of the third country concerned.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 122 Delegated powers):
1. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the wine sector, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules and restrictions on: (a) the presentation and use of labelling particulars other than those provided for in this Section; (b) compulsory particulars concerning: (i) terms to be used to formulate the compulsory particulars and their conditions of use; (ii) terms referring to a holding and the conditions for their use; (iii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to compulsory particulars; (iv) provisions allowing further derogations in addition to those referred to in Article 119(2) as regards the omission of the reference to the category of the grapevine product; and (v) provisions on the use of languages; (c) optional particulars concerning: (i) terms to be used to formulate the optional particulars and their conditions of use; (ii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to optional particulars; (d) the presentation concerning: (i) the conditions of use of certain bottle shapes, and a list of certain specific bottle shapes; (ii) the conditions of use of "sparkling wine"-type bottles and closures; (iii) provisions allowing the producing Member States to establish additional rules relating to presentation; 2. In order to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of operators, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules as regards temporary labelling and presentation of wines bearing a designation of origin or a geographical indication, where that designation of origin or geographical indication fulfils the necessary requirements. 3. In order to ensure that economic operators are not prejudiced, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning transitional provisions as regards wine placed on the market and labelled in accordance with the relevant rules applying before 1 August 2009. 4. In order to take account of the specific characteristics in trade between the Union and certain third countries, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning derogations from this Section as regards products to be exported where required by the law of the third country concerned.
Article 123 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down necessary measures concerning the procedures and technical criteria applicable to this Section, including the necessary measures for the certification, approval and verification procedures applicable to wines without a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 124 Duration
With the exceptions of Articles 125 and 126, this Section shall apply until the end of the 2016/2017 marketing year. Subsection 1 Specific measures
Article 125 Sugar sector agreements
1. The terms for buying sugar beet and sugar cane, including pre-sowing delivery contracts, shall be governed by written agreements within the trade concluded between, on the one hand, Union growers of sugar beet and sugar cane or, on their behalf, the organisations of which they are members, and, on the other hand, Union sugar undertakings or, on their behalf, the organisations of which they are members. 2. Agreements within the trade as described in point 6 of Section A of Part II of Annex II shall be notified by sugar undertakings to the competent authorities of the Member State in which they produce sugar. 3. From 1 October 2017, agreements within the trade shall conform to the purchase terms laid down in Annex X. 4. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the sugar sector and the development of the sector in the period following the ending of production quotas, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 to: (a) update the terms referred to in Section A of Part II of Annex II; (b) update the purchase terms for beet referred to in Annex X; (c) lay down further rules on the determination of gross weight, tare and sugar content of sugar beet delivered to an undertaking, and on beet pulp. 5. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the measures necessary for the application of this Article, including in respect of procedures, notifications and administrative assistance in the case of agreements within the trade covering more than one Member State. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 125 Sugar sector agreements):
1. The terms for buying sugar beet and sugar cane, including pre-sowing delivery contracts, shall be governed by written agreements within the trade concluded between, on the one hand, Union growers of sugar beet and sugar cane or, on their behalf, the organisations of which they are members, and, on the other hand, Union sugar undertakings or, on their behalf, the organisations of which they are members. 2. Agreements within the trade as described in point 6 of Section A of Part II of Annex II shall be notified by sugar undertakings to the competent authorities of the Member State in which they produce sugar. 3. Agreements within the trade shall conform to the purchase terms laid down in Annex X. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the sugar sector and the development of the sector in the period following the ending of production quotas, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 to: (a) update the terms referred to in Section A of Part II of Annex II; (b) update the purchase terms for beet referred to in Annex X; (c) lay down further rules on the determination of gross weight, tare and sugar content of sugar beet delivered to an undertaking, and on beet pulp. 5. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the measures necessary for the application of this Article, including in respect of procedures, notifications and administrative assistance in the case of agreements within the trade covering more than one Member State. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 126 Price reporting in the sugar market
The Commission may adopt implementing acts establishing a system for reporting sugar market prices, including arrangements for publishing the price levels for this market. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). The system referred to in the first subparagraph shall be based on information submitted by undertakings producing white sugar or by other operators involved in the sugar trade. This information shall be treated as confidential. The Commission shall ensure that specific prices or names of individual economic operators are not published. Subsection 2 Requirements applying to the sugar sector during the period referred to in article 124
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 126 Price reporting in the sugar market):
The Commission may adopt implementing acts establishing a system for reporting sugar market prices, including arrangements for publishing the price levels for this market. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). The system referred to in the first subparagraph shall be based on information submitted by undertakings producing white sugar or by other operators involved in the sugar trade. This information shall be treated as confidential. The Commission shall ensure that specific prices or names of individual economic operators are not published.
Article 127 Delivery contracts
1. In addition to the requirements set out in Article 125(1), agreements within the trade shall conform to the purchase terms laid down in Annex XI. 2. In delivery contracts, a distinction shall be made depending on whether the quantities of sugar to be manufactured from sugar beet are: (a) quota sugar; or (b) out-of-quota sugar. 3. Each sugar undertaking shall provide the Member State in which it produces sugar with the following information: (a) the quantities of beet referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 for which they have concluded pre-sowing delivery contracts and the sugar content on which those contracts are based; (b) the corresponding estimated yield. Member States may require additional information. 4. Sugar undertakings which have not signed pre-sowing delivery contracts at the minimum price for quota beet, as referred to in Article 135, for a quantity of beet equivalent to the sugar for which they hold a quota, adjusted, as the case may be, by the coefficient for a preventive withdrawal fixed pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 130(2), shall be required to pay at least the minimum price for quota beet for all the sugar beet they process into sugar. 5. Subject to the approval of the Member State concerned, agreements within the trade may derogate from paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. 6. If no agreements within the trade exist, the Member State concerned shall take the necessary steps compatible with this Regulation to protect the interests of the parties concerned.
Article 128 Production charge
1. A production charge shall be levied on the sugar quota, the isoglucose quota and the inulin syrup quota held by undertakings producing sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup as referred to in Article 136(2). 2. Measures on the fixing of the production charge for quota sugar, quota isoglucose and quota inulin syrup referred to in paragraph 1 shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU.
Article 129 Production refund
1. A production refund may be granted on the products of the sugar sector listed in points (b) to (e) of Part III of Annex I if surplus sugar or imported sugar, surplus isoglucose or surplus inulin syrup is not available at a price corresponding to the world price for the manufacturing of the products referred to in points (b) and (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 140(2). 2. Measures on the fixing of the production refund referred to in paragraph 1 shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Article 130 Withdrawal of sugar
1. To avoid price collapses in the internal market and to remedy situations of overproduction based on the forecast supply balance, and taking into account the commitments of the Union resulting from international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, the Commission may adopt implementing acts withdrawing from the market, for a given marketing year, those quantities of sugar or isoglucose produced under quotas which exceed the threshold calculated in accordance with paragraph 2. 2. The withdrawal threshold referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated, for each undertaking holding a quota, by multiplying its quota by a coefficient. The Commission may adopt implementing acts fixing that coefficient for a marketing year no later than 28 February of the previous marketing year, on the basis of expected market trends. On the basis of updated market trends, the Commission may, by 31 October of the marketing year concerned, adopt implementing acts either adjusting or, where no coefficient has been fixed pursuant to the first subparagraph, fixing a coefficient. 3. Each undertaking holding a quota shall store, at its own expense, until the beginning of the following marketing year, the sugar produced under quota in excess of the threshold calculated in accordance with paragraph 2. The sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup quantities withdrawn during a marketing year shall be treated as the first quantities produced under quota for the following marketing year. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, taking into account the expected sugar market trends, the Commission may adopt implementing acts providing that, for the current, the following or both marketing years, all or part of the withdrawn sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup is to be considered to be: (a) surplus sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup available to become industrial sugar, industrial isoglucose or industrial inulin syrup; or (b) temporary quota production of which a part may be reserved for export respecting the commitments of the Union resulting from international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU. 4. If sugar supply in the Union is inadequate, the Commission may adopt implementing acts allowing a certain quantity of withdrawn sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup to be sold on the Union market before the end of the period of withdrawal. 5. Where withdrawn sugar is treated as the first sugar production of the following marketing year, the minimum price of that marketing year, as referred to in Article 135, shall be paid to beet growers. Where withdrawn sugar becomes industrial sugar or is exported in accordance with points (a) or (b) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 of this Article, the requirements of Article 135 on the minimum price shall not apply. Where withdrawn sugar is sold on the Union market before the end of the period of withdrawal in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article, the minimum price of the ongoing marketing year shall be paid to beet growers. 6. Implementing acts pursuant to this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 131 Temporary market management mechanism
1. For the duration of the period referred to in Article 124, the Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the measures necessary in order to ensure a sufficient supply of sugar to the Union market. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). Such measures may adjust, for the quantity and time necessary, the level of the duty payable on imported raw sugar. Within the context of the temporary market management mechanism, measures on the fixing of a surplus levy are taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU. 2. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts determining the appropriate quantity of out-of-quota sugar and imported raw sugar that can be released onto the Union market. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 132 Delegated powers
In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the sugar sector and to ensure that the interests of all parties are duly taken into account, and given the need to prevent any disturbance of the market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning: (a) purchase terms and delivery contracts referred to Article 127; (b) updating the purchase terms for beet referred to in Annex XI; (c) the criteria to be applied by the sugar undertakings when allocating among beet sellers the quantities of beet to be covered by pre-sowing delivery contracts as referred to in Article 127(3).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Article 133 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the measures necessary for the application of this Subsection concerning procedures, content and technical criteria. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). Subsection 3 System of production regulation
Article 134 Quotas in the sugar sector
1. A quota system shall apply to sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup. 2. As regards the quota system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, if a producer exceeds the relevant quota and does not make use of the surplus quantities as provided for in Article 139, a surplus levy shall be payable on such quantities, subject to the conditions set out in Articles 139 to 142.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Article 135 Minimum beet price
The minimum price for quota beet shall be fixed by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU.
Article 136 Quota allocation
1. The quotas for the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup at national or regional level are fixed in Annex XII. 2. The Member States shall allocate a quota to each undertaking producing sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup established in its territory and approved under Article 137. For each undertaking, the allocated quota shall be equal to the quota which was allocated to the undertaking for the marketing year 2010/2011 under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. 3. Where a quota is allocated to a sugar undertaking having more than one production unit, the Member States shall adopt the measures they consider necessary in order to take due account of the interests of sugar beet and cane growers.
Article 137 Approved undertakings
1. On request, Member States shall grant approval to an undertaking producing sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup or to an undertaking that processes these products into a product included in the list referred to in Article 140(2) provided that the undertaking: (a) proves its professional production capacities; (b) agrees to provide any information and to be subject to controls related to this Regulation; (c) is not subject to suspension or withdrawal of the approval. 2. The approved undertakings shall provide the Member State in whose territory the harvest of beet, cane or the refining takes place with the following information: (a) the quantities of beet or cane for which a delivery contract has been concluded, as well as the corresponding estimated yields of beet or cane and sugar per hectare; (b) data on provisional and actual sugar beet, sugar cane and raw sugar deliveries, and on sugar production and statements of sugar stocks; (c) the quantities of white sugar sold and the corresponding prices and conditions.
Article 138 National quota reallocation and reduction of quotas
1. A Member State may reduce the sugar or isoglucose quota that has been allocated to an undertaking established on its territory by up to 10 %. In doing so, the Member States shall apply objective and non-discriminatory criteria. 2. Member States may transfer quotas between undertakings in accordance with the rules laid down in Annex XIII and taking into consideration the interests of each of the parties concerned, particularly sugar beet and cane growers. 3. The quantities reduced pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be allocated by the Member State in question to one or more undertakings on its territory, whether or not holding a quota.
Article 139 Out-of-quota production
1. The sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 136 may be: (a) used for the processing of certain products as referred to in Article 140; (b) carried forward to the quota production of the next marketing year in accordance with Article 141; (c) used for the specific supply regime for the outermost regions, in accordance with Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 38 ); (d) exported within a quantitative limit, to be fixed by the Commission by means of implementing acts, respecting the commitments resulting from international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU; or (e) released onto the internal market, in compliance with the mechanism described in Article 131, for the purpose of adjusting supply to demand on the basis of the forecast supply balance. The measures referred to in point (e) of the first paragraph of this Article shall be implemented before any activation of the measures to prevent market disturbance referred to in Article 219(1). Other quantities shall be subject to the surplus levy referred to in Article 142. 2. Implementing acts pursuant to this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Article 140 Industrial sugar
1. Industrial sugar, industrial isoglucose or industrial inulin syrup shall be reserved for the production of one of the products referred to in paragraph 2 when: (a) it has been subject to a delivery contract concluded before the end of the marketing year between a producer and a user which have both been granted approval in accordance with Article 137; and (b) it has been delivered to the user on 30 November of the following marketing year at the latest. 2. In order to take account of technical developments, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 establishing a list of products for the production of which industrial sugar, industrial isoglucose or industrial inulin syrup may be used. The list shall, in particular, include: (a) bioethanol, alcohol, rum, live yeast and quantities of syrups for spreading and those to be processed into "Rinse appelstroop"; (b) certain industrial products without sugar content but which are processed using sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup; (c) certain products of the chemical or pharmaceutical industry which contain sugar, isoglucose or inulin syrup.
Article 141 Carry-forward of surplus sugar
1. Each undertaking may decide to carry forward all or part of its production in excess of its sugar quota, its isoglucose quota or its inulin syrup quota to be treated as part of the next marketing year's production. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, that decision shall be irrevocable. 2. Undertakings which take the decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall: (a) inform the Member State concerned before a date to be determined by that Member State: (i) between 1 February and 31 August of the current marketing year for quantities of cane sugar being carried forward; (ii) between 1 February and 31 August of the current marketing year for quantities of beet sugar or inulin syrup being carried forward; (a) inform the Member State concerned before a date to be determined by that Member State: (i) between 1 February and 31 August of the current marketing year for quantities of cane sugar being carried forward; (ii) between 1 February and 31 August of the current marketing year for quantities of beet sugar or inulin syrup being carried forward; (b) undertake to store such quantities at their own expense until the end of the current marketing year. 3. If an undertaking's definitive production in the marketing year concerned was less than the estimate made when the decision in accordance with paragraph 1 was taken, the quantity carried forward may be adjusted retroactively by 31 October of the following marketing year at the latest. 4. The quantities carried forward shall be deemed to be the first quantities produced under the quota of the following marketing year. 5. Sugar stored in accordance with this Article during a marketing year may not be subject to any other storage measures provided for in Articles 17 or 130.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 141 Carry-forward of surplus sugar):
1. Each undertaking may decide to carry forward all or part of its production in excess of its sugar quota, its isoglucose quota or its inulin syrup quota to be treated as part of the next marketing year's production. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, that decision shall be irrevocable. 2. Undertakings which take the decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall: (a) inform the Member State concerned before a date to be determined by that Member State: (i) between 1 February and 31 August of the current marketing year for quantities of cane sugar being carried forward; (ii) between 1 February and 31 August of the current marketing year for quantities of beet sugar or inulin syrup being carried forward; (b) undertake to store such quantities at their own expense until the end of the current marketing year. 3. If an undertaking's definitive production in the marketing year concerned was less than the estimate made when the decision in accordance with paragraph 1 was taken, the quantity carried forward may be adjusted retroactively by 31 October of the following marketing year at the latest. 4. The quantities carried forward shall be deemed to be the first quantities produced under the quota of the following marketing year. 5. Sugar stored in accordance with this Article during a marketing year may not be subject to any other storage measures provided for in Articles 17 or 130.
Article 142 Surplus levy
1. A surplus levy shall be levied on quantities of: (a) surplus sugar, surplus isoglucose and surplus inulin syrup produced during any marketing year, except for quantities carried forward to the quota production of the following marketing year and stored in accordance with Article 141 or quantities referred to in points (c), (d) and (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1); (b) industrial sugar, industrial isoglucose or industrial inulin syrup in respect of which no proof of use in one of the products referred to in Article 140(2) has been supplied within a time limit, to be fixed by the Commission by means of implementing acts; (c) sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup withdrawn from the market in accordance with Article 130 and for which the obligations provided for in Article 130(3) are not met. Implementing acts pursuant to point (b) of the first subparagraph shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). 2. Measures on the fixing of a surplus levy referred to in paragraph 1 shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU.
Article 143 Delegated powers
1. In order to ensure that undertakings referred to in Article 137 comply with their obligations, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down rules on the granting and the withdrawal of approval for such undertakings, as well as the criteria for administrative penalties. 2. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the sugar sector and to ensure that the interests of all parties are duly taken into account, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on the meaning of terms for the operation of the quota system, as well as laying down the conditions governing sales to outermost regions. 3. In order to ensure that the growers are closely associated with a decision to carry forward a certain quantity of production, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down rules concerning carry-forward of sugar.
Article 144 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
With regard to the undertakings referred to in Article 137, the Commission may adopt implementing acts establishing rules concerning: (a) applications for approval made by undertakings, the records to be kept by approved undertakings, the information to be submitted by approved undertakings; (b) the system of checks to be carried out by Member States on approved undertakings; (c) Member States' communications with the Commission and with approved undertakings; (d) the delivery to undertakings of raw materials, including delivery contracts and delivery notes; (e) equivalence regarding sugar referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1); (f) the specific supply regime for the outermost regions; (g) exports as referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 139(1); (h) Member State cooperation to ensure effective checks; (i) modifying the dates laid down in Article 141 for specific marketing years; (j) the establishment of the surplus quantity, the communications and payment of the surplus levy referred to in Article 142; (k) the adoption of a list of full-time refiners within the meaning of point 6 of Section B of Part II of Annex II. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 145 Vineyard register and inventory of production potential
1. Member States shall maintain a vineyard register which shall contain updated information on the production potential. From 1 January 2016, this obligation shall only apply if Member States implement the scheme of authorisations for vine plantings referred to in Chapter III of Title I, or a national support programme. 2. Until 31 December 2015, Member States in which the total area planted with vines of wine grape varieties classified in accordance with Article 81(2) is less than 500 hectares shall not be subject to the obligation laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article. 3. Member States which provide for restructuring and conversion of vineyards in their support programmes in accordance with Article 46 shall, on the basis of the vineyard register, submit to the Commission by 1 March each year an updated inventory of their production potential. From 1 January 2016, details in respect of communications to the Commission regarding wine-growing areas shall be laid down by the Commission by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). 4. In order to facilitate the monitoring and the verification of the production potential by Member States, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules on the content of the vineyard register and exemptions therefrom.
Article 146 Competent national authorities for the wine sector
1. Without prejudice to any other provisions of this Regulation concerning the determination of competent national authorities, Member States shall designate one or more authorities which shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with Union rules in the wine sector. In particular, Member States shall designate the laboratories authorised to carry out official analyses in the wine sector. The designated laboratories shall satisfy the general criteria for the operation of testing laboratories set out in ISO/IEC 17025. 2. Member States shall inform the Commission of the names and addresses of the authorities and laboratories referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission shall make this information public and shall update it periodically.
Article 147 Accompanying documents and register
1. The products of the wine sector shall be put into circulation in the Union with an officially authorised accompanying document. 2. Natural or legal persons or groups of persons who hold products covered by the wine sector in the exercise of their trade, in particular producers, bottlers, processors and merchants, shall keep inward and outward registers in respect of those products. 3. In order to facilitate the transport of wine products and the verification thereof by Member States, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on: (a) rules on the accompanying document and its use; (b) the conditions under which an accompanying document is to be regarded as certifying protected designations of origin or geographical indications; (c) an obligation to keep a register and its use; (d) who is obliged to keep a register and exemptions from that obligation; (e) the operations to be included in the register. 4. The Commission may adopt implementing acts establishing: (a) rules on the composition of the registers, the products to be contained therein, deadlines for entries in registers and the closures of registers; (b) measures requiring Member States to determine the maximum acceptable percentages for losses; (c) general and transitional provisions for the keeping of registers; (d) rules determining how long accompanying documents and the registers are to be kept. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 148 Contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector
1. Where a Member State decides that every delivery of raw milk in its territory by a farmer to a processor of raw milk must be covered by a written contract between the parties and/or decides that first purchasers must make a written offer for a contract for the delivery of raw milk by the farmers, such contract and/or such offer for a contract shall fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 2. Where a Member State decides that deliveries of raw milk by a farmer to a processor of raw milk must be covered by a written contract between the parties, it shall also decide which stage or stages of the delivery shall be covered by such a contract if the delivery of raw milk is made through one or more collectors. For the purposes of this Article, a "collector" means an undertaking which transports raw milk from a farmer or another collector to a processor of raw milk or another collector, where the ownership of the raw milk is transferred in each case. 2. The contract and/or the offer for a contract referred to in paragraph 1 shall: (a) be made in advance of the delivery, (b) be made in writing, and (c) include, in particular, the following elements: (i) the price payable for the delivery, which shall: — be static and be set out in the contract, and/or — be calculated by combining various factors set out in the contract, which may include market indicators reflecting changes in market conditions, the volume delivered and the quality or composition of the raw milk delivered, (ii) the volume of raw milk which may and/or must be delivered and the timing of such deliveries, (iii) the duration of the contract, which may include either a definite or an indefinite duration with termination clauses, (iv) details regarding payment periods and procedures, (v) arrangements for collecting or delivering raw milk, and (vi) rules applicable in the event of force majeure. (c) include, in particular, the following elements: (i) the price payable for the delivery, which shall: — be static and be set out in the contract, and/or — be calculated by combining various factors set out in the contract, which may include market indicators reflecting changes in market conditions, the volume delivered and the quality or composition of the raw milk delivered, (i) the price payable for the delivery, which shall: — be static and be set out in the contract, and/or — be calculated by combining various factors set out in the contract, which may include market indicators reflecting changes in market conditions, the volume delivered and the quality or composition of the raw milk delivered, (ii) the volume of raw milk which may and/or must be delivered and the timing of such deliveries, (iii) the duration of the contract, which may include either a definite or an indefinite duration with termination clauses, (iv) details regarding payment periods and procedures, (v) arrangements for collecting or delivering raw milk, and (vi) rules applicable in the event of force majeure. 3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a contract and/or an offer for a contract shall not be required where raw milk is delivered by a farmer to a co-operative of which the farmer is a member if the statutes of that cooperative or the rules and decisions provided for in or derived from these statutes contain provisions having similar effects to the provisions set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2. 4. All elements of contracts for the delivery of raw milk concluded by farmers, collectors or processors of raw milk, including the elements referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, shall be freely negotiated between the parties. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, one or both of the following shall apply: (a) where a Member State decides to make a written contract for the delivery of raw milk compulsory in accordance with paragraph 1, it may establish a minimum duration, applicable only to written contracts between a farmer and the first purchaser of raw milk; such a minimum duration shall be at least six months, and shall not impair the proper functioning of the internal market; (b) where a Member State decides that the first purchaser of raw milk must make a written offer for a contract to the farmer in accordance with paragraph 1, it may provide that the offer must include a minimum duration for the contract, set by national law for this purpose; such a minimum duration shall be at least six months, and shall not impair the proper functioning of the internal market. The second subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the farmer's right to refuse such a minimum duration provided that he does so in writing. In such a case, the parties shall be free to negotiate all elements of the contract, including the elements referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2. 5. The Member States which make use of the options referred to in this Article shall notify the Commission of how they are applied. 6. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down measures necessary for the uniform application of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of this Article and measures relating to notifications to be made by the Member States in accordance with this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 148 Contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector):
1. Where a Member State decides that every delivery of raw milk in its territory by a farmer to a processor of raw milk must be covered by a written contract between the parties and/or decides that first purchasers must make a written offer for a contract for the delivery of raw milk by the farmers, such contract and/or such offer for a contract shall fulfil the conditions laid down in paragraph 2. Where a Member State decides that deliveries of raw milk by a farmer to a processor of raw milk must be covered by a written contract between the parties, it shall also decide which stage or stages of the delivery shall be covered by such a contract if the delivery of raw milk is made through one or more collectors. For the purposes of this Article, a "collector" means an undertaking which transports raw milk from a farmer or another collector to a processor of raw milk or another collector, where the ownership of the raw milk is transferred in each case. 2. The contract and/or the offer for a contract referred to in paragraph 1 shall: (a) be made in advance of the delivery, (b) be made in writing, and (c) include, in particular, the following elements: (i) the price payable for the delivery, which shall: — be static and be set out in the contract, and/or — be calculated by combining various factors set out in the contract, which may include market indicators reflecting changes in market conditions, the volume delivered and the quality or composition of the raw milk delivered, (ii) the volume of raw milk which may and/or must be delivered and the timing of such deliveries, (iii) the duration of the contract, which may include either a definite or an indefinite duration with termination clauses, (iv) details regarding payment periods and procedures, (v) arrangements for collecting or delivering raw milk, and (vi) rules applicable in the event of force majeure. 3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a contract and/or an offer for a contract shall not be required where raw milk is delivered by a farmer to a co-operative of which the farmer is a member if the statutes of that cooperative or the rules and decisions provided for in or derived from these statutes contain provisions having similar effects to the provisions set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2. 4. All elements of contracts for the delivery of raw milk concluded by farmers, collectors or processors of raw milk, including the elements referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, shall be freely negotiated between the parties. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, one or both of the following shall apply: (a) where a Member State decides to make a written contract for the delivery of raw milk compulsory in accordance with paragraph 1, it may establish a minimum duration, applicable only to written contracts between a farmer and the first purchaser of raw milk; such a minimum duration shall be at least six months, and shall not impair the proper functioning of the internal market; (b) where a Member State decides that the first purchaser of raw milk must make a written offer for a contract to the farmer in accordance with paragraph 1, it may provide that the offer must include a minimum duration for the contract, set by national law for this purpose; such a minimum duration shall be at least six months, and shall not impair the proper functioning of the internal market. The second subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the farmer's right to refuse such a minimum duration provided that he does so in writing. In such a case, the parties shall be free to negotiate all elements of the contract, including the elements referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2. 5. The Member States which make use of the options referred to in this Article shall notify the Commission of how they are applied. 6. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down measures necessary for the uniform application of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of this Article and measures relating to notifications to be made by the Member States in accordance with this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 149 Contractual negotiations in the milk and milk products sector
1. A producer organisation in the milk and milk products sector which is recognised under Article 152(3) may negotiate on behalf of its farmer members, in respect of part or all of their joint production, contracts for the delivery of raw milk by a farmer to a processor of raw milk, or to a collector within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 148(1). 2. The negotiations by the producer organisation may take place: (a) whether or not there is a transfer of ownership of the raw milk by the farmers to the producer organisation; (b) whether or not the price negotiated is the same as regards the joint production of some or all of the farmer members; (c) provided that, for a particular producer organisation, all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations does not exceed 3,5 % of total Union production, (ii) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations which is produced in any particular Member State does not exceed 33 % of the total national production of that Member State, and (iii) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations which is delivered in any particular Member State does not exceed 33 % of the total national production of that Member State; (c) provided that, for a particular producer organisation, all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations does not exceed 3,5 % of total Union production, (ii) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations which is produced in any particular Member State does not exceed 33 % of the total national production of that Member State, and (iii) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations which is delivered in any particular Member State does not exceed 33 % of the total national production of that Member State; (d) provided that the farmers concerned are not members of any other producer organisation which also negotiates such contracts on their behalf; however, Member States may derogate from this condition in duly justified cases where farmers hold two distinct production units located in different geographic areas; (e) provided that the raw milk is not covered by an obligation to deliver arising from the farmer's membership of a cooperative in accordance with the conditions set out in the cooperative's statutes or the rules and decisions provided for in or derived from these statutes; and (f) provided that the producer organisation notifies the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States in which it operates of the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations. 3. Notwithstanding the conditions set out in of point (c)(ii) and (iii) of paragraph 2, a producer organisation may negotiate pursuant to paragraph 1 provided that, with regard to that producer organisation, the volume of raw milk covered by the negotiations which is produced in or delivered in a Member State having a total annual raw milk production of less than 500 000 tonnes does not exceed 45 % of the total national production of that Member State. 4. For the purposes of this Article, references to producer organisations include associations of such producer organisations. 5. For the purposes of applying point (c) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, the Commission shall publish, by such means as it considers appropriate, the amounts of raw milk production in the Union and the Member States using the most up-to-date information available. 6. By way of derogation from point (c) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, even where the thresholds set out therein are not exceeded, the competition authority referred to in the second subparagraph of this paragraph may decide in an individual case that a particular negotiation by the producer organisation should either be reopened or should not take place at all if it considers that this is necessary in order to prevent competition from being excluded or in order to avoid seriously damaging SME processors of raw milk in its territory. For negotiations covering more than one Member State, the decision referred to in the first subparagraph shall be taken by the Commission without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3). In other cases, that decision shall be taken by the national competition authority of the Member State to which the negotiations relate. The decisions referred to in this paragraph shall not apply earlier than the date of their notification to the undertakings concerned. 7. For the purposes of this Article: (a) a "national competition authority" means the authority referred to in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 ( 39 ); (b) a "SME" means a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC. 8. The Member States in which negotiations take place in accordance with this Article shall notify the Commission of the application of point (f) of paragraph 2 and of paragraph 6.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 149 Contractual negotiations in the milk and milk products sector):
1. A producer organisation in the milk and milk products sector which is recognised under Article 152(3) may negotiate on behalf of its farmer members, in respect of part or all of their joint production, contracts for the delivery of raw milk by a farmer to a processor of raw milk, or to a collector within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 148(1). 2. The negotiations by the producer organisation may take place: (a) whether or not there is a transfer of ownership of the raw milk by the farmers to the producer organisation; (b) whether or not the price negotiated is the same as regards the joint production of some or all of the farmer members; (c) provided that, for a particular producer organisation, all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations does not exceed 3,5 % of total Union production, (ii) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations which is produced in any particular Member State does not exceed 33 % of the total national production of that Member State, and (iii) the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations which is delivered in any particular Member State does not exceed 33 % of the total national production of that Member State; (d) provided that the farmers concerned are not members of any other producer organisation which also negotiates such contracts on their behalf; however, Member States may derogate from this condition in duly justified cases where farmers hold two distinct production units located in different geographic areas; (e) provided that the raw milk is not covered by an obligation to deliver arising from the farmer's membership of a cooperative in accordance with the conditions set out in the cooperative's statutes or the rules and decisions provided for in or derived from these statutes; and (f) provided that the producer organisation notifies the competent authorities of the Member State or Member States in which it operates of the volume of raw milk covered by such negotiations. 3. Notwithstanding the conditions set out in of point (c)(ii) and (iii) of paragraph 2, a producer organisation may negotiate pursuant to paragraph 1 provided that, with regard to that producer organisation, the volume of raw milk covered by the negotiations which is produced in or delivered in a Member State having a total annual raw milk production of less than 500 000 tonnes does not exceed 45 % of the total national production of that Member State. 4. For the purposes of this Article, references to producer organisations include associations of such producer organisations. 5. For the purposes of applying point (c) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, the Commission shall publish, by such means as it considers appropriate, the amounts of raw milk production in the Union and the Member States using the most up-to-date information available. 6. By way of derogation from point (c) of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, even where the thresholds set out therein are not exceeded, the competition authority referred to in the second subparagraph of this paragraph may decide in an individual case that a particular negotiation by the producer organisation should either be reopened or should not take place at all if it considers that this is necessary in order to prevent competition from being excluded or in order to avoid seriously damaging SME processors of raw milk in its territory. For negotiations covering more than one Member State, the decision referred to in the first subparagraph shall be taken by the Commission without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3). In other cases, that decision shall be taken by the national competition authority of the Member State to which the negotiations relate. The decisions referred to in this paragraph shall not apply earlier than the date of their notification to the undertakings concerned. 7. For the purposes of this Article: (a) a "national competition authority" means the authority referred to in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 ( 21 ); (b) a "SME" means a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC. 8. The Member States in which negotiations take place in accordance with this Article shall notify the Commission of the application of point (f) of paragraph 2 and of paragraph 6.
Article 150 Regulation of supply for cheese with a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication
1. Upon the request of a producer organisation recognised under Article 152(3), an interbranch organisation recognised under Article 157(3) or a group of operators referred to in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Member States may lay down, for a limited period of time, binding rules for the regulation of the supply of cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin or from a protected geographical indication under Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. 2. The rules referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be subject to the existence of a prior agreement between the parties in the geographical area referred to in point (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Such an agreement shall be concluded between at least two-thirds of the milk producers or their representatives representing at least two thirds of the raw milk used for the production of the cheese referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and, where relevant, at least two-thirds of the producers of that cheese representing at least two thirds of the production of that cheese in the geographical area referred to in point (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. 3. For the purpose of paragraph 1, concerning cheese benefiting from a protected geographical indication, the geographical area of origin of the raw milk, as set in the product specification for the cheese, shall be the same as the geographical area referred to in point (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 relating to that cheese. 4. The rules referred to in paragraph 1: (a) shall only cover the regulation of supply of the product concerned and shall have the aim of adapting the supply of that cheese to demand; (b) shall have effect only on the product concerned; (c) may be made binding for no more than three years and may be renewed after this period, following a new request, as referred to in paragraph 1; (d) shall not damage the trade in products other than those concerned by those rules; (e) shall not relate to any transaction after the first marketing of the cheese concerned; (f) shall not allow for price fixing, including where prices are set for guidance or recommendation; (g) shall not render unavailable an excessive proportion of the product concerned that would otherwise be available; (h) shall not create discrimination, constitute a barrier for new entrants in the market, or lead to small producers being adversely affected; (i) shall contribute to maintaining the quality and/or the development of the product concerned; (j) shall be without prejudice to Article 149. 5. The rules referred to in paragraph 1 shall be published in an official publication of the Member State concerned. 6. Member States shall carry out checks in order to ensure that the conditions laid down in paragraph 4 are complied with, and, where it has been found by the competent national authorities that such conditions have not been complied with, shall repeal the rules referred to in paragraph 1. 7. Member States shall notify the Commission forthwith of the rules referred to in paragraph 1 which they have adopted. The Commission shall inform other Member States of any notification of such rules. 8. The Commission may at any time adopt implementing acts requiring that a Member State repeal the rules laid down by that Member State pursuant to paragraph 1 if the Commission finds that those rules do not comply with the conditions laid down in paragraph 4, prevent or distort competition in a substantial part of the internal market or jeopardise free trade or the attainment of the objectives of Article 39 TFEU. Those implementing acts shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3) of this Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Article 151 Compulsory declarations in the milk and milk products sector
From 1 April 2015, the first purchasers of raw milk shall declare to the competent national authority the quantity of raw milk that has been delivered to them each month. For the purposes of this Article and Article 148, a "first purchaser" means an undertaking or group which buys milk from producers in order to: (a) subject it to collecting, packing, storing, chilling or processing, including under a contract; (b) sell it to one or more undertakings treating or processing milk or other milk products. Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantity of raw milk referred to in the first subparagraph. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down rules on the content, format and timing of such declarations and measures relating to the notifications to be made by the Member States in accordance with this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 151 Compulsory declarations in the milk and milk products sector):
The first purchasers of raw milk shall declare to the competent national authority the quantity of raw milk that has been delivered to them each month and the average price paid. A distinction shall be made between organic and non-organic milk. For the purposes of this Article and Article 148, a "first purchaser" means an undertaking or group which buys milk from producers in order to: (a) subject it to collecting, packing, storing, chilling or processing, including under a contract; (b) sell it to one or more undertakings treating or processing milk or other milk products. Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities of raw milk and the average prices referred to in the first paragraph. The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down rules on the content, format and timing of such declarations and measures relating to the notifications to be made by the Member States in accordance with this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 152 Producer organisations
1. Member States may, on request, recognise producer organisations, which: (a) are constituted, and controlled in accordance with point (c) of Article 153(2), by producers in a specific sector listed in Article 1(2); (b) are formed on the initiative of the producers; (c) pursue a specific aim which may include at least one of the following objectives: (i) ensuring that production is planned and adjusted to demand, particularly in terms of quality and quantity; (ii) concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by its members, including through direct marketing; (iii) optimising production costs and returns on investments in response to environmental and animal welfare standards, and stabilising producer prices; (iv) carrying out research and developing initiatives on sustainable production methods, innovative practices, economic competitiveness and market developments; (v) promoting, and providing technical assistance for, the use of environmentally sound cultivation practices and production techniques, and sound animal welfare practices and techniques; (vi) promoting, and providing technical assistance for, the use of production standards, improving product quality and developing products with a protected designation of origin, with a protected geographical indication or covered by a national quality label; (vii) the management of by-products and of waste in particular to protect the quality of water, soil and landscape and preserving or encouraging biodiversity; (viii) contributing to a sustainable use of natural resources and to climate change mitigation; (ix) developing initiatives in the area of promotion and marketing; (x) managing of the mutual funds referred to in operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector referred to in point (d) of Article 33(3) of this Regulation and under Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013; (xi) providing the necessary technical assistance for the use of the futures markets and of insurance schemes. (c) pursue a specific aim which may include at least one of the following objectives: (i) ensuring that production is planned and adjusted to demand, particularly in terms of quality and quantity; (ii) concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by its members, including through direct marketing; (iii) optimising production costs and returns on investments in response to environmental and animal welfare standards, and stabilising producer prices; (iv) carrying out research and developing initiatives on sustainable production methods, innovative practices, economic competitiveness and market developments; (v) promoting, and providing technical assistance for, the use of environmentally sound cultivation practices and production techniques, and sound animal welfare practices and techniques; (vi) promoting, and providing technical assistance for, the use of production standards, improving product quality and developing products with a protected designation of origin, with a protected geographical indication or covered by a national quality label; (vii) the management of by-products and of waste in particular to protect the quality of water, soil and landscape and preserving or encouraging biodiversity; (viii) contributing to a sustainable use of natural resources and to climate change mitigation; (ix) developing initiatives in the area of promotion and marketing; (x) managing of the mutual funds referred to in operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector referred to in point (d) of Article 33(3) of this Regulation and under Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013; (xi) providing the necessary technical assistance for the use of the futures markets and of insurance schemes. 2. A producer organisation recognised under paragraph 1 may continue to be recognised if it engages in the marketing of products falling within CN code ex 22 08 other than those referred to in Annex I to the Treaties, provided that the proportion of such products does not exceed 49 % of the total value of marketed production of the producer organisation and that such products do not benefit from Union support. Those products do not count, for producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector, towards the calculation of the value of marketed production for the purposes of Article 34(2). 3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall recognise producer organisations, constituted by producers in the milk and milk products sector, which: (b) pursue a specific aim which may include one or more of the following objectives: (i) ensuring that production is planned and adjusted to demand, particularly in terms of quality and quantity; (ii) concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by its members; (iii) optimising production costs and stabilising producer prices. (b) pursue a specific aim which may include one or more of the following objectives: (ii) concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by its members; (iii) optimising production costs and stabilising producer prices.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 152 Producer organisations):
1. Member States may, on request, recognise producer organisations, which: (a) are constituted, and controlled in accordance with point (c) of Article 153(2), by producers in a specific sector listed in Article 1(2); (b) are formed on the initiative of the producers; (c) pursue a specific aim which may include at least one of the following objectives: (i) ensuring that production is planned and adjusted to demand, particularly in terms of quality and quantity; (ii) concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by its members, including through direct marketing; (iii) optimising production costs and returns on investments in response to environmental and animal welfare standards, and stabilising producer prices; (iv) carrying out research and developing initiatives on sustainable production methods, innovative practices, economic competitiveness and market developments; (v) promoting, and providing technical assistance for, the use of environmentally sound cultivation practices and production techniques, and sound animal welfare practices and techniques; (vi) promoting, and providing technical assistance for, the use of production standards, improving product quality and developing products with a protected designation of origin, with a protected geographical indication or covered by a national quality label; (vii) the management of by-products and of waste in particular to protect the quality of water, soil and landscape and preserving or encouraging biodiversity; (viii) contributing to a sustainable use of natural resources and to climate change mitigation; (ix) developing initiatives in the area of promotion and marketing; (x) managing of the mutual funds referred to in operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector referred to in point (d) of Article 33(3) of this Regulation and under Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013; (xi) providing the necessary technical assistance for the use of the futures markets and of insurance schemes. 2. A producer organisation recognised under paragraph 1 may continue to be recognised if it engages in the marketing of products falling within CN code ex 22 08 other than those referred to in Annex I to the Treaties, provided that the proportion of such products does not exceed 49 % of the total value of marketed production of the producer organisation and that such products do not benefit from Union support. Those products do not count, for producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector, towards the calculation of the value of marketed production for the purposes of Article 34(2). 3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall recognise producer organisations, constituted by producers in the milk and milk products sector, which: (b) pursue a specific aim which may include one or more of the following objectives: (ii) concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by its members; (iii) optimising production costs and stabilising producer prices.