Article 1 Scope
1. This Regulation establishes a common organisation of the markets for agricultural products, which means all the products listed in Annex I to the Treaties with the exception of the fishery and aquaculture products as defined in Union legislative acts on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products. 2. Agricultural products as defined in paragraph 1 shall be divided into the following sectors as listed in the respective parts of Annex I: (a) cereals, Part I; (b) rice, Part II; (c) sugar, Part III; (d) dried fodder, Part IV; (e) seeds, Part V; (f) hops, Part VI; (g) olive oil and table olives, Part VII; (h) flax and hemp, Part VIII; (i) fruit and vegetables, Part IX; (j) processed fruit and vegetable products, Part X; (k) bananas, Part XI; (l) wine, Part XII; (m) live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage, Part XIII; (n) tobacco, Part XIV; (o) beef and veal, Part XV; (p) milk and milk products, Part XVI; (q) pigmeat, Part XVII; (r) sheepmeat and goatmeat, Part XVIII; (s) eggs, Part XIX; (t) poultrymeat, Part XX; (u) ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, Part XXI; (v) apiculture products, Part XXII; (w) silkworms, Part XXIII; (x) other products, Part XXIV.
Article 2 General common agricultural policy (CAP) provisions
Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 and the provisions adopted pursuant to it shall apply in relation to the measures set out in this Regulation.
Article 3 Definitions
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions concerning certain sectors as set out in Annex II shall apply. 2. The definitions set out in Section B of Part II of Annex II shall only apply until the end of the 2016/2017 marketing year for sugar. 3. The definitions set out in Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 ( 20 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 21 ) shall apply for the purposes of this Regulation, save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation. 4. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the rice sector, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 amending the definitions concerning the rice sector set out in Part I of Annex II to the extent necessary to update the definitions in the light of market developments. 5. For the purposes of this Regulation: (a) "less developed regions" means those regions defined as such in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 90(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 22 ). (b) "adverse climatic event which can be assimilated to a natural disaster" means weather conditions such as frost, hail, ice, rain or drought which destroy more than 30 % of the average annual production of a given farmer in the preceding three-year period or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and lowest entry.
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 3 Definitions):
1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions concerning certain sectors as set out in Annex II shall apply. 4. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the rice sector, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 amending the definitions concerning the rice sector set out in Part I of Annex II to the extent necessary to update the definitions in the light of market developments. For the purposes of this Regulation: (b) "adverse climatic event which can be assimilated to a natural disaster" means weather conditions such as frost, hail, ice, rain or drought which destroy more than 30 % of the average annual production of a given farmer in the preceding three-year period or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and lowest entry.
Article 4 Adjustments to the Common Customs Tariff nomenclature used for agricultural products
Where necessary in order to take into account amendments to the combined nomenclature, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 adjusting the description of products and references in this Regulation to the headings or subheadings of the combined nomenclature.
Article 5 Conversion rates for rice
The Commission may adopt implementing acts: (a) fixing the conversion rates for rice at various stages of processing, the processing costs and the value of by-products; (b) adopting all necessary measures regarding the application of conversion rates for rice. 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 5 Conversion rates for rice):
The Commission may adopt implementing acts fixing the conversion rates for rice at various stages of processing. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 6 Marketing years
The following marketing years shall be established: (a) 1 January to 31 December of a given year for the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and banana sectors; (b) 1 April to 31 March of the following year for the dried fodder and silkworm sectors; (c) 1 July to 30 June of the following year for: (i) the cereals sector; (ii) the seeds sector; (iii) the olive oil and table olives sector; (iv) the flax and hemp sector; (v) the milk and milk products sector; (c) 1 July to 30 June of the following year for: (i) the cereals sector; (ii) the seeds sector; (iii) the olive oil and table olives sector; (iv) the flax and hemp sector; (v) the milk and milk products sector; (d) 1 August to 31 July of the following year for the wine sector; (e) 1 September to 31 August of the following year for the rice sector; (f) 1 October to 30 September of the following year for the sugar sector.
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 6 Marketing years):
The following marketing years shall be established: (a) 1 January to 31 December of a given year for the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and banana sectors; (b) 1 April to 31 March of the following year for the dried fodder and silkworm sectors; (c) 1 July to 30 June of the following year for: (i) the cereals sector; (ii) the seeds sector; (iii) the olive oil and table olives sector; (iv) the flax and hemp sector; (v) the milk and milk products sector; (d) 1 August to 31 July of the following year for the wine sector; (e) 1 September to 31 August of the following year for the rice sector; (f) 1 October to 30 September of the following year for the sugar sector.
Article 7 Reference thresholds
1. The following reference thresholds are fixed: (a) as regards the cereals sector, EUR 101,31/tonne, related to the wholesale stage for goods delivered to the warehouse, before unloading; (b) as regards paddy rice, EUR 150/tonne for the standard quality as defined in point A of Annex III, related to the wholesale stage for goods delivered to the warehouse, before unloading; (c) as regards sugar of standard quality as defined in point B of Annex III, related to unpacked sugar, ex-factory: (i) for white sugar: EUR 404,4/tonne; (ii) for raw sugar: EUR 335,2/tonne; (c) as regards sugar of standard quality as defined in point B of Annex III, related to unpacked sugar, ex-factory: (i) for white sugar: EUR 404,4/tonne; (ii) for raw sugar: EUR 335,2/tonne; (d) as regards the beef and veal sector, EUR 2 224 /tonne for carcasses of male bovine animals of conformation/fat cover class R3 as laid down in the Union scale for the classification of carcasses of bovine animals aged eight months or more referred to in point A of Annex IV; (e) as regards the milk and milk products sector: (i) EUR 246,39 per 100 kg for butter; (ii) EUR 169,80 per 100 kg for skimmed milk powder; (e) as regards the milk and milk products sector: (i) EUR 246,39 per 100 kg for butter; (ii) EUR 169,80 per 100 kg for skimmed milk powder; (f) as regards pigmeat, EUR 1 509,39 /tonne for pig carcasses of a standard quality defined in terms of weight and lean meat content as laid down in the Union scale for the classification of pig carcasses referred to in point B of Annex IV as follows: (i) carcasses weighing from 60 to less than 120 kg: class E; (ii) carcasses weighing from 120 to 180 kg: class R; (f) as regards pigmeat, EUR 1 509,39 /tonne for pig carcasses of a standard quality defined in terms of weight and lean meat content as laid down in the Union scale for the classification of pig carcasses referred to in point B of Annex IV as follows: (i) carcasses weighing from 60 to less than 120 kg: class E; (ii) carcasses weighing from 120 to 180 kg: class R; (g) as regards the olive oil sector: (i) EUR 1 779 /tonne for extra virgin olive oil; (ii) EUR 1 710 /tonne for virgin olive oil; (iii) EUR 1 524 /tonne for lampante olive oil with two degrees of free acidity, this amount being reduced by EUR 36,70/tonne for each additional degree of acidity. (g) as regards the olive oil sector: (i) EUR 1 779 /tonne for extra virgin olive oil; (ii) EUR 1 710 /tonne for virgin olive oil; (iii) EUR 1 524 /tonne for lampante olive oil with two degrees of free acidity, this amount being reduced by EUR 36,70/tonne for each additional degree of acidity. 2. The reference thresholds provided for in paragraph 1 shall be kept under review by the Commission, taking account of objective criteria, notably developments in production, costs of production (particularly inputs), and market trends. When necessary, the reference thresholds shall be updated in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure in the light of developments in production and markets.
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 7 Reference thresholds):
1. The following reference thresholds are fixed: (a) as regards the cereals sector, EUR 101,31/tonne, related to the wholesale stage for goods delivered to the warehouse, before unloading; (b) as regards paddy rice, EUR 150/tonne for the standard quality as defined in point A of Annex III, related to the wholesale stage for goods delivered to the warehouse, before unloading; (c) as regards sugar of standard quality as defined in point B of Annex III, related to unpacked sugar, ex-factory: (i) for white sugar: EUR 404,4/tonne; (ii) for raw sugar: EUR 335,2/tonne; (d) as regards the beef and veal sector, EUR 2 224 /tonne for carcasses of male bovine animals of conformation/fat cover class R3 as laid down in the Union scale for the classification of carcasses of bovine animals aged eight months or more referred to in point A of Annex IV; (e) as regards the milk and milk products sector: (i) EUR 246,39 per 100 kg for butter; (ii) EUR 169,80 per 100 kg for skimmed milk powder; (f) as regards pigmeat, EUR 1 509,39 /tonne for pig carcasses of a standard quality defined in terms of weight and lean meat content as laid down in the Union scale for the classification of pig carcasses referred to in point B of Annex IV as follows: (i) carcasses weighing from 60 to less than 120 kg: class E; (ii) carcasses weighing from 120 to 180 kg: class R; (g) as regards the olive oil sector: (i) EUR 1 779 /tonne for extra virgin olive oil; (ii) EUR 1 710 /tonne for virgin olive oil; (iii) EUR 1 524 /tonne for lampante olive oil with two degrees of free acidity, this amount being reduced by EUR 36,70/tonne for each additional degree of acidity. 2. The reference thresholds provided for in paragraph 1 shall be kept under review by the Commission, taking account of objective criteria, notably developments in production, costs of production (particularly inputs), and market trends. When necessary, the reference thresholds shall be updated in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure in the light of developments in production and markets.
Article 8 Scope
This Chapter lays down rules on market intervention concerning: (a) public intervention, where products are bought in by the competent authorities of the Member States and stored by them until disposed of; and (b) granting of aid for the storage of products by private operators.
Article 9 Origin of eligible products
Products eligible for buying-in under public intervention or for the granting of aid for private storage shall originate in the Union. In addition, if they come from crops, those crops shall have been harvested in the Union, and if they come from milk, that milk shall have been produced in the Union.
Article 10 Union scales for the classification of carcasses
Union scales for the classification of carcasses shall apply in accordance with, respectively, points A and B of Annex IV in the beef and veal sector as regards carcasses of bovine animals aged eight months or more and in the pigmeat sector as regards pigs other than those that have been used for breeding. In the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector, Member States may apply a Union scale for the classification of sheep carcasses in accordance with the rules laid down in point C of Annex IV.
Article 11 Products eligible for public intervention
Public intervention shall apply in respect of the following products in accordance with the conditions laid down in this Section and any additional requirements and conditions that may be determined by the Commission, by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 19 and implementing acts pursuant to Article 20: (a) common wheat, durum wheat, barley and maize; (b) paddy rice; (c) fresh or chilled meat of the beef and veal sector falling within CN codes 0201 10 00 and 0201 20 20 to 0201 20 50 ; (d) butter produced directly and exclusively from pasteurised cream obtained directly and exclusively from cow's milk in an approved undertaking in the Union of a minimum butterfat content, by weight, of 82 % and of a maximum water content, by weight, of 16 %; (e) skimmed milk powder of top quality made from cow's milk in an approved undertaking in the Union by the spray process, with a minimum protein content of 34,0 % by weight of the fat free dry matter.
Article 12 Public intervention periods
Public intervention shall be available for: (a) common wheat, durum wheat, barley and maize, from 1 November to 31 May; (b) paddy rice, from 1 April to 31 July; (c) beef and veal, throughout the year; (d) butter and skimmed milk powder, from 1 March to 30 September.
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 12 Public intervention periods):
Public intervention shall be available for: (a) common wheat, from 1 October to 31 May; (b) durum wheat, barley and maize, throughout the year; (c) paddy rice, throughout the year; (d) beef and veal, throughout the year; (e) butter and skimmed milk powder, from 1 February to 30 September.
Article 13 Opening and closing of public intervention
1. During the periods referred to in Article 12, public intervention: (a) shall be open for common wheat, butter and skimmed milk powder; (b) may be opened by the Commission, by means of implementing acts, for durum wheat, barley, maize and paddy rice (including specific varieties or types of paddy rice), if the market situation so requires. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2); (c) may be opened for the beef and veal sector by the Commission, by means of implementing acts adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3), if, over a representative period determined pursuant to point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 20 the average market price in a Member State or in a region of a Member State, recorded on the basis of the Union scale for the classification of carcasses of bovine animals referred to in point A of Annex IV, is below 85 % of the reference threshold laid down in point (d) of Article 7(1). 2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts closing public intervention for the beef and veal sector where, over a representative period determined pursuant to point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 20, the conditions provided for in point (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article are no longer fulfilled. Those implementing acts shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3).
Article 14 Buying-in at a fixed price or tendering
Where public intervention is open pursuant to Article 13(1), measures on fixing buying-in prices for the products referred to in Article 11 as well as, where applicable, measures on quantitative limitations where buying-in is carried out at a fixed price, shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU.
Article 15 Public intervention price
1. Public intervention price means: (a) the price at which products shall be bought in under public intervention where this is done at a fixed price; or (b) the maximum price at which products eligible for public intervention may be bought in where this is done by tendering. 2. The measures on fixing the level of the public intervention price, including the amounts of increases and reductions, 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.
Revised version (Article 15 Public intervention price):
1. Public intervention price means: (a) the price at which products shall be bought in under public intervention where this is done at a fixed price; or (b) the maximum price at which products eligible for public intervention may be bought in where this is done by tendering. Public intervention price means: (a) the price at which products shall be bought in under public intervention where this is done at a fixed price; or (b) the maximum price at which products eligible for public intervention may be bought in where this is done by tendering. 2. The measures on fixing the level of the public intervention price, including the amounts of increases and reductions, shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU.
Article 16 General principles on disposal from public intervention
1. Disposal of products bought in under public intervention shall take place in such a way as to: (a) avoid any disturbance of the market, (b) ensure equal access to goods and equal treatment of purchasers, and (c) be in compliance with the commitments resulting from international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU. 2. Products bought in under public intervention may be disposed of by making them available for the scheme for food distribution to the most deprived in the Union as set out in the relevant Union legal acts. In such cases, the accounting value of such products shall be at the level of the relevant fixed public intervention price referred to in Article 15(2) of this Regulation. 3. Each year the Commission shall publish details of the conditions under which products bought in under public intervention were sold in the previous year.
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 16 General principles on disposal from public intervention):
1. Disposal of products bought in under public intervention shall take place in such a way as to: (a) avoid any disturbance of the market, (b) ensure equal access to goods and equal treatment of purchasers, and (c) be in compliance with the commitments resulting from international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU. 2. Products bought in under public intervention may be disposed of by making them available for the scheme for food distribution to the most deprived in the Union as set out in the relevant Union legal acts. In such cases, the accounting value of such products shall be at the level of the relevant fixed public intervention price referred to in Article 15(2) of this Regulation. 2a. Member States shall notify to the Commission all the information needed to allow for the monitoring of compliance with the principles laid down in paragraph 1. 3. Each year the Commission shall publish details of the conditions under which products bought in under public intervention were bought or sold in the previous year. Those details shall include the relevant volumes and the buying and selling prices.
Article 17 Eligible products
Aid for private storage may be granted in respect of the following products in accordance with the conditions set out in this Section and any further requirements and conditions to be adopted by the Commission, by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 18(1) or Article 19 and implementing acts pursuant to Article 18(2) or Article 20: (a) white sugar; (b) olive oil; (c) flax fibre; (d) fresh or chilled meat of bovine animals aged eight months or more; (e) butter produced from cream obtained directly and exclusively from cow's milk; (f) cheese; (g) skimmed milk powder made from cow's milk; (h) pigmeat; (i) sheepmeat and goatmeat. Point (f) of the first paragraph is restricted to cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin or from a protected geographical indication under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 that is stored beyond the period of maturation laid down in the product specification for the product referred to in Article 7 of that Regulation and/or a period of maturation that contributes to increasing the value of the cheese.
Article 18 Conditions for granting aid
1. In order to provide for market transparency, the Commission shall, where necessary, be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the conditions under which it may decide to grant private storage aid for the products listed in Article 17, taking into account: (a) average recorded Union market prices and the reference thresholds and production costs for the products concerned; and/or (b) the need to respond in a timely way to a particularly difficult market situation or economic developments having a significant negative impact on the margins in the sector. 2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts (a) granting private storage aid for the products listed in Article 17, taking into account the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article; (b) restricting the granting of private storage aid. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). 3. Measures on fixing the amount of aid for private storage provided for in Article 17 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.
Revised version (Article 18 Conditions for granting aid):
1. In order to provide for market transparency, the Commission shall, where necessary, be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the conditions under which it may decide to grant private storage aid for the products listed in Article 17, taking into account: (a) average recorded Union market prices and the reference thresholds and production costs for the products concerned; and/or (b) the need to respond in a timely way to a particularly difficult market situation or economic developments having a significant negative impact on the margins in the sector. In order to provide for market transparency, the Commission shall, where necessary, be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the conditions under which it may decide to grant private storage aid for the products listed in Article 17, taking into account: (a) average recorded Union market prices and the reference thresholds and production costs for the products concerned; and/or (b) the need to respond in a timely way to a particularly difficult market situation or economic developments having a significant negative impact on the margins in the sector. 2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts (a) granting private storage aid for the products listed in Article 17, taking into account the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article; (b) restricting the granting of private storage aid. The Commission may adopt implementing acts (a) granting private storage aid for the products listed in Article 17, taking into account the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article; (b) restricting the granting of private storage aid. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). 3. Measures on fixing the amount of aid for private storage provided for in Article 17 shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU.
Article 19 Delegated powers
1. In order to ensure that products bought in under public intervention or subject to aid for private storage are suitable for long-term storage and are of sound, fair and marketable quality, and in order to take into account the specific characteristics of the different sectors for the purposes of ensuring the cost-effective operation of public intervention and private storage, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the requirements and conditions to be met by those products, in addition to the requirements laid down in this Regulation. Those requirements and conditions shall aim to guarantee, for the products bought in and stored: (a) their quality with respect to quality parameters, quality groups, quality grades, categories, product characteristics and age; (b) their eligibility with respect to quantities, packaging including labelling, preservation, previous storage contracts, approval of undertakings and the stage of the products to which the public intervention price and the aid for private storage applies. 2. In order to take account of the specific characteristics of the cereals and paddy rice sectors, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the quality criteria as regards both buying-in and sales of common wheat, durum wheat, barley, maize and paddy rice. 3. In order to ensure appropriate storage capacity and the efficiency of the public intervention system in terms of cost-effectiveness, distribution and access for operators, and in order to maintain the quality of products bought in under public intervention for their disposal at the end of the storage period, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down: (a) the requirements to be fulfilled by storage places for all products subject to public intervention; (b) rules on the storage of products inside and outside the Member State responsible for them and for the treatment of such products as regards customs duties and any other amounts to be granted or levied under the CAP. 4. In order to ensure that aid for private storage has the desired effect on the market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down: (a) rules and conditions applicable where the quantity stored is lower than the contracted quantity; (b) the conditions for granting an advance payment of such aid; (c) the conditions under which it may be decided that products covered by private storage contracts may be re-marketed or disposed of. 5. In order to ensure the proper functioning of the public intervention and private storage systems, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227: (a) providing for the use of tendering procedures guaranteeing equal access to goods and equal treatment of operators; (b) laying down the additional conditions to be fulfilled by operators in order to facilitate the effective management and control of the system for Member States and operators; (c) laying down the requirement for operators to lodge a security guaranteeing the fulfilment of their obligations. 6. In order to take account of technical developments and of the needs of sectors referred to in Article 10, as well as of the need to standardise the presentation of the different products for the purposes of improving market transparency, price recording and the application of the market intervention measures, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227: (a) adapting and updating the provisions of Annex IV on the Union scales for the classification, identification and presentation of carcasses; (b) laying down supplementary provisions relating to classification, including by qualified classifiers, to grading, including by automated grading techniques, to identification, weighing and marking of carcasses and to the calculation of average Union prices and to the weighting coefficients used in the calculation of those prices; (c) laying down, in the beef and veal sector, derogations from provisions and specific derogations which may be granted by Member States to slaughterhouses in which few bovine animals are slaughtered, and additional provisions for the products concerned, including regarding the classes of conformation and fat cover and, in sheepmeat sector, further provisions as regards weight, colour of meat and fat cover and the criteria for the classification of light lambs; (d) providing Member States with the authorisation not to apply the grading scale for classification of pig carcasses and the authorisation to use assessment criteria in addition to weight and estimated lean-meat content, or laying down derogations from that scale.
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 19 Delegated powers):
1. In order to ensure that products bought in under public intervention or subject to aid for private storage are suitable for long-term storage and are of sound, fair and marketable quality, and in order to take into account the specific characteristics of the different sectors for the purposes of ensuring the cost-effective operation of public intervention and private storage, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the requirements and conditions to be met by those products, in addition to the requirements laid down in this Regulation. Those requirements and conditions shall aim to guarantee, for the products bought in and stored: (a) their quality with respect to quality parameters, quality groups, quality grades, categories, product characteristics and age; (b) their eligibility with respect to quantities, packaging including labelling, preservation, previous storage contracts, approval of undertakings and the stage of the products to which the public intervention price and the aid for private storage applies. In order to ensure that products bought in under public intervention or subject to aid for private storage are suitable for long-term storage and are of sound, fair and marketable quality, and in order to take into account the specific characteristics of the different sectors for the purposes of ensuring the cost-effective operation of public intervention and private storage, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the requirements and conditions to be met by those products, in addition to the requirements laid down in this Regulation. Those requirements and conditions shall aim to guarantee, for the products bought in and stored: (a) their quality with respect to quality parameters, quality groups, quality grades, categories, product characteristics and age; (b) their eligibility with respect to quantities, packaging including labelling, preservation, previous storage contracts, approval of undertakings and the stage of the products to which the public intervention price and the aid for private storage applies. 2. In order to take account of the specific characteristics of the cereals and paddy rice sectors, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the quality criteria as regards both buying-in and sales of common wheat, durum wheat, barley, maize and paddy rice. 3. In order to ensure appropriate storage capacity and the efficiency of the public intervention system in terms of cost-effectiveness, distribution and access for operators, and in order to maintain the quality of products bought in under public intervention for their disposal at the end of the storage period, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down: (a) the requirements to be fulfilled by storage places for all products subject to public intervention; (b) rules on the storage of products inside and outside the Member State responsible for them and for the treatment of such products as regards customs duties and any other amounts to be granted or levied under the CAP. In order to ensure appropriate storage capacity and the efficiency of the public intervention system in terms of cost-effectiveness, distribution and access for operators, and in order to maintain the quality of products bought in under public intervention for their disposal at the end of the storage period, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down: (a) the requirements to be fulfilled by storage places for all products subject to public intervention; (b) rules on the storage of products inside and outside the Member State responsible for them and for the treatment of such products as regards customs duties and any other amounts to be granted or levied under the CAP. In order to ensure that aid for private storage has the desired effect on the market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down: (a) rules and conditions applicable where the quantity stored is lower than the contracted quantity; (b) the conditions for granting an advance payment of such aid; (c) the conditions under which it may be decided that products covered by private storage contracts may be re-marketed or disposed of. In order to ensure the proper functioning of the public intervention and private storage systems, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227: (a) providing for the use of tendering procedures guaranteeing equal access to goods and equal treatment of operators; (b) laying down the additional conditions to be fulfilled by operators in order to facilitate the effective management and control of the system for Member States and operators; (c) laying down the requirement for operators to lodge a security guaranteeing the fulfilment of their obligations. In order to take account of technical developments and of the needs of sectors referred to in Article 10, as well as of the need to standardise the presentation of the different products for the purposes of improving market transparency, price recording and the application of the market intervention measures, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227: (a) adapting and updating the provisions of Annex IV on the Union scales for the classification, identification and presentation of carcasses; (b) laying down supplementary provisions relating to classification, including by qualified classifiers, to grading, including by automated grading techniques, to identification, weighing and marking of carcasses and to the calculation of average Union prices and to the weighting coefficients used in the calculation of those prices; (c) laying down, in the beef and veal sector, derogations from provisions and specific derogations which may be granted by Member States to slaughterhouses in which few bovine animals are slaughtered, and additional provisions for the products concerned, including regarding the classes of conformation and fat cover and, in sheepmeat sector, further provisions as regards weight, colour of meat and fat cover and the criteria for the classification of light lambs; (d) providing Member States with the authorisation not to apply the grading scale for classification of pig carcasses and the authorisation to use assessment criteria in addition to weight and estimated lean-meat content, or laying down derogations from that scale.
Article 20 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
The Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the measures necessary for the uniform application of this Chapter. Those measures may, in particular, concern the following: (a) the costs payable by the operator where products delivered for public intervention do not meet the minimum quality requirements; (b) the fixing of minimum storage capacity for intervention storage places; (c) the representative periods, markets, and market prices necessary for the application of this Chapter; (d) the delivery of the products to be bought in under public intervention, the transport costs to be borne by the offerer, the taking over of the products by paying agencies and the payment; (e) the different operations connected with the boning process for the beef and veal sector; (f) the practical arrangements for the packaging, marketing and labelling of products; (g) the procedures for the approval of undertakings producing butter and skimmed milk powder for the purposes of this Chapter; (h) any authorisation of storage outside the territory of the Member State where the products have been bought in and stored; (i) the sale or disposal of products bought in under public intervention, regarding, in particular, selling prices, the conditions for removal from storage, the subsequent use or destination of products released, including procedures relating to products made available for use in the scheme referred to in Article 16(2), including transfers between Member States; (j) in respect of products bought in under public intervention, the provisions relating to the possibility for Member States to sell, at their own responsibility, small quantities remaining in storage or quantities which may no longer be repackaged or which have deteriorated; (k) in respect of private storage, the conclusion and the content of contracts between the competent authority of the Member State and the applicants; (l) the placing and keeping of products in private storage and their removal from storage; (m) the duration of the private storage period and the provisions according to which such periods, once specified in the contracts, may be curtailed or extended; (n) the procedures to be followed for buying-in at a fixed price, including the procedures for, and the amount of, the security to be lodged, or for the granting of aid fixed in advance for private storage; (o) the use of tendering procedures, both for public intervention and for private storage, in particular as regards: (i) the submission of offers or tenders and the minimum quantity for an application or submission; (ii) the procedures for, and the amount of, the security to be lodged; and (iii) the selection of offers ensuring that preference is given to those which are most favourable to the Union whilst permitting that the award of a contract does not necessarily ensue; (o) the use of tendering procedures, both for public intervention and for private storage, in particular as regards: (i) the submission of offers or tenders and the minimum quantity for an application or submission; (ii) the procedures for, and the amount of, the security to be lodged; and (iii) the selection of offers ensuring that preference is given to those which are most favourable to the Union whilst permitting that the award of a contract does not necessarily ensue; (p) the implementation of Union scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses; (q) a different presentation of carcasses and half carcasses than the one laid down in point A.IV of Annex IV for the purpose of establishing market prices; (r) the corrective factors to be applied by Member States to be used for a different presentation of beef and sheep carcasses where the reference presentation is not used; (s) the practical arrangements for the marking of classified carcasses and for the calculation by the Commission of the weighted average Union price for beef, pig and sheep carcasses; (t) the authorisation of Member States to provide, with regard to pigs slaughtered in their territory, for a different presentation of pig carcasses than the one laid down in point B.III of Annex IV, if one of the following conditions is fulfilled: (i) normal commercial practice in their territory differs from the standard presentation defined in the first subparagraph of point B.III of Annex IV; (ii) technical requirements warrant it; (iii) carcasses are dehided in a uniform manner; (t) the authorisation of Member States to provide, with regard to pigs slaughtered in their territory, for a different presentation of pig carcasses than the one laid down in point B.III of Annex IV, if one of the following conditions is fulfilled: (i) normal commercial practice in their territory differs from the standard presentation defined in the first subparagraph of point B.III of Annex IV; (ii) technical requirements warrant it; (iii) carcasses are dehided in a uniform manner; (u) the provisions for the on-thespot review of the application of classification of carcasses in Member States by a Union committee composed of experts from the Commission and experts appointed by Member States in order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the classification of carcasses. Those provisions shall provide for the Union to bear the costs resulting from the review activity. 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 20 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure):
The Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the measures necessary for the uniform application of this Chapter. Those measures may, in particular, concern the following: (a) the costs payable by the operator where products delivered for public intervention do not meet the minimum quality requirements; (b) the fixing of minimum storage capacity for intervention storage places; (c) the representative periods, markets, and market prices necessary for the application of this Chapter; (d) the delivery of the products to be bought in under public intervention, the transport costs to be borne by the offerer, the taking over of the products by paying agencies and the payment; (e) the different operations connected with the boning process for the beef and veal sector; (f) the practical arrangements for the packaging, marketing and labelling of products; (g) the procedures for the approval of undertakings producing butter and skimmed milk powder for the purposes of this Chapter; (h) any authorisation of storage outside the territory of the Member State where the products have been bought in and stored; (i) the sale or disposal of products bought in under public intervention, regarding, in particular, selling prices, the conditions for removal from storage, the subsequent use or destination of products released, including procedures relating to products made available for use in the scheme referred to in Article 16(2), including transfers between Member States; (j) in respect of products bought in under public intervention, the provisions relating to the possibility for Member States to sell, at their own responsibility, small quantities remaining in storage or quantities which may no longer be repackaged or which have deteriorated; (k) in respect of private storage, the conclusion and the content of contracts between the competent authority of the Member State and the applicants; (l) the placing and keeping of products in private storage and their removal from storage; (m) the duration of the private storage period and the provisions according to which such periods, once specified in the contracts, may be curtailed or extended; (n) the procedures to be followed for buying-in at a fixed price, including the procedures for, and the amount of, the security to be lodged, or for the granting of aid fixed in advance for private storage; (o) the use of tendering procedures, both for public intervention and for private storage, in particular as regards: (i) the submission of offers or tenders and the minimum quantity for an application or submission; (ii) the procedures for, and the amount of, the security to be lodged; and (iii) the selection of offers ensuring that preference is given to those which are most favourable to the Union whilst permitting that the award of a contract does not necessarily ensue; (p) the implementation of Union scales for the classification of beef, pig and sheep carcasses; (q) a different presentation of carcasses and half carcasses than the one laid down in point A.IV of Annex IV for the purpose of establishing market prices; (r) the corrective factors to be applied by Member States to be used for a different presentation of beef and sheep carcasses where the reference presentation is not used; (s) the practical arrangements for the marking of classified carcasses and for the calculation by the Commission of the weighted average Union price for beef, pig and sheep carcasses; (t) the authorisation of Member States to provide, with regard to pigs slaughtered in their territory, for a different presentation of pig carcasses than the one laid down in point B.III of Annex IV, if one of the following conditions is fulfilled: (i) normal commercial practice in their territory differs from the standard presentation defined in the first subparagraph of point B.III of Annex IV; (ii) technical requirements warrant it; (iii) carcasses are dehided in a uniform manner; (u) the provisions for the on-thespot review of the application of classification of carcasses in Member States by a Union committee composed of experts from the Commission and experts appointed by Member States in order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the classification of carcasses. Those provisions shall provide for the Union to bear the costs resulting from the review activity. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 21 Other implementing powers
The Commission shall adopt implementing acts in order to authorise Member States to use for lambs of less than 13 kg carcass weight, by way of derogation from point C.III of Annex IV, the following criteria for classification: (a) carcass weight; (b) colour of meat; (c) fat cover. Those implementing acts shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3).
Article 22 Target group
Aid schemes intended to improve the distribution of agricultural products and improving children's eating habits are aimed at children who regularly attend nurseries, pre-schools or primary or secondary-level educational establishments which are administered or recognised by the competent authorities of Member States. Subsection 1 School fruit and vegetables scheme
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 22 Target group):
The aid scheme intended to improve the distribution of agricultural products and improving children's eating habits is aimed at children who regularly attend nurseries, pre-schools or primary or secondary-level educational establishments which are administered or recognised by the competent authorities of Member States.
Article 23 Aid for the supply of fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables and banana products to children
1. Union aid shall be granted for: (a) the supply to children in the educational establishments referred to in Article 22 of products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, and bananas sectors; and (b) certain related costs linked to logistics and distribution, equipment, publicity, monitoring, evaluation and accompanying measures. 2. Member States wishing to participate in the scheme shall draw up, at national or regional level, a prior strategy for its implementation. They shall also provide for the accompanying measures necessary to make the scheme effective, which may include information on measures for education about healthy eating habits, about local food chains and about combating food wastage. 3. When drawing up their strategies, Member States shall draw up a list of products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, and bananas sectors that will be eligible under their respective schemes. This list shall not include products that are listed in Annex V. However, in duly justified cases, such as where a Member State wants to ensure a broad assortment of products under its scheme or wants to make its scheme more attractive, its strategy may provide that such products may become eligible if only limited amounts of the substances referred to in that Annex are added. Member States shall ensure that their competent health authorities endorse the list of such products that are eligible under their scheme. Member States shall choose their products on the basis of objective criteria which may include health and environmental considerations, seasonality, variety or availability of produce, giving priority, as far as practicable, to products originating in the Union, and particularly to local purchasing, local markets, short supply chains or environmental benefits. 4. Measures on fixing the Union aid referred to in paragraph 1 shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU. 5. The Union aid referred to in paragraph 1 shall be allocated to each Member State on the basis of objective criteria based on their proportion of six- to ten-year old children. Member States participating in the scheme shall apply every year for Union aid on the basis of their strategy referred to in paragraph 2. Measures on fixing the minimum amount of Union aid for each Member State participating in the scheme and on the indicative and definitive allocations of aid to Member States shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU. 6. Union aid provided for in paragraph 1 shall not be used to replace funding for any existing national school fruit schemes providing fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, and bananas or other school distribution schemes that include such products. However, if a Member State already has a scheme in place that would be eligible for Union aid under this Article and intends to extend it or make it more effective, including as regards the target group of the scheme, its duration or eligible products, Union aid may be granted provided that the limits set out in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU are respected as regards the proportion of Union aid to the total national contribution. In such a case, the Member State shall indicate in its implementation strategy how it intends to extend its scheme or make it more effective. 7. Member States may, in addition to Union aid, grant national aid in accordance with Article 217. 8. The Union school fruit and vegetables scheme shall be without prejudice to any separate national school fruit and vegetables schemes which are compatible with Union law. 9. The Union may also finance, under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, information, monitoring and evaluation measures relating to the school fruit and vegetables scheme, including measures raising public awareness of it, and related networking measures. 10. Member States participating in the scheme shall publicise, at the places where the food is distributed, their involvement in the aid scheme and the fact that it is subsidised by the Union.
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).
Article 24 Delegated powers
1. In order to promote the healthy eating habits of children and to ensure that the aid is aimed at children in the target group referred to in Article 22, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules on: (a) the additional criteria related to the targeting of aid by Member States; (b) the approval and selection of aid applicants by Member States; (c) the drawing-up of the national or regional strategies and on accompanying measures. 2. In order to ensure the efficient and targeted use of Union funds, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning: (a) the method for reallocating the indicative allocation of aid referred to in Article 23(5) between Member States on the basis of requests for aid received; (b) the costs in Member States' strategies that are eligible for Union aid and the possibility of fixing an overall ceiling for specific costs; (c) the obligation for Member States to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their school fruit and vegetables schemes. 3. In order to promote awareness of the scheme, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 requiring Member States with a school fruit and vegetables scheme to publicise the subsidising role of the Union aid.
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 24 Delegated powers):
1. In order to promote the healthy eating habits of children and to ensure that the aid under the school scheme is aimed at children in the target group referred to in Article 22, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules on: (a) the additional criteria related to the eligibility of the target group referred to in Article 22; (b) the approval and selection of aid applicants by Member States; (c) the drawing up of the national or regional strategies and on the accompanying educational measures. 2. In order to ensure the efficient and targeted use of Union funds and to facilitate the implementation of the school scheme, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning: (a) the identification of costs and measures that are eligible for Union aid; (b) the obligation for Member States to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their school scheme. 3. In order to take account of scientific developments, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 in order to supplement the list of artificial flavour-enhancers referred to in point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 23(6). In order to ensure that products distributed in accordance with Article 23(3), (4) and (5) meet the objectives of the school scheme, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 in order to define the maximum levels for added sugar, added salt and added fat which may be allowed by Member States under the second subparagraph of Article 23(6) and which are technically necessary to prepare or manufacture processed products. 4. In order to promote awareness of the school scheme and to increase the visibility of Union aid, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 requiring the Member States participating in the school scheme to clearly publicise the fact that they are receiving Union support to implement the scheme, including in relation to: (a) if appropriate, the establishment of specific criteria regarding the presentation, composition, size and design of the common identifier or graphic elements; (b) the specific criteria related to the use of publicity tools. 5. In order to ensure the added value and the visibility of the school scheme, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 in respect of the rules concerning the distribution of products in relation to the provision of other meals in educational establishments. 6. Taking into account the need to ensure that the Union aid is reflected in the price at which the products are available under the school scheme, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 requiring Member States to explain in their strategies how this will be achieved.
Article 25 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, including: (a) the information to be contained in Member States' strategies; (b) the aid applications and payments; (c) the methods of publicising, and networking measures in respect of, the scheme; (d) the submission, format and content of monitoring and evaluation reports by Member States participating in the Union school fruit and vegetables scheme. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). Subsection 2 School milk scheme
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 25 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure):
The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, adopt the measures necessary for the application of this Section, including those concerning: (a) the information to be contained in Member States' strategies; (b) the aid applications and payments, including the simplification of procedures resulting from the common framework for the school scheme; (c) the methods of publicising, and networking measures in respect of, the school scheme; (d) the submission, format and content of annual requests for aid, monitoring and evaluation reports by Member States participating in the school scheme; (e) the application of Article 23a(4), including on the deadlines for the transfers and on the submission, format and content of transfer notifications. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 26 Aid for the supply of milk and milk products to children
1. Union aid shall be granted for supplying to children in educational establishments referred to in Article 22 certain milk and processed milk products falling within CN codes 0401 , 0403 , 0404 90 and 0406 or CN code 2202 90 . 2. From 1 August 2015, Member States, at national or regional level, wishing to participate in the scheme shall have a prior strategy for its implementation. They may also provide for the accompanying measures, which may include information on measures for education about healthy eating habits, about local food chains and about combating food wastage, that are necessary to make the programme effective. 3. When drawing up their strategies, Member States shall draw up a list of milk and milk products that will be eligible under their respective schemes, in accordance with the rules adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 27. 4. Except for free distribution of meals to children in educational establishments, Union aid referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be used to replace funding for any existing national milk and milk products schemes or other school distribution schemes that include milk or milk products. However, if a Member State already has a scheme in place that would be eligible for Union aid under this Article and intends to extend it or make it more effective, including as regards the target group of the scheme, its duration or eligible products, Union aid may be granted. In such a case, the Member State shall indicate in its implementation strategy how it intends to extend its scheme or make it more effective. 5. Member States may, in addition to Union aid, grant national aid in accordance with Article 217. 6. The Union school milk and milk products scheme shall be without prejudice to any separate national school schemes to encourage the consumption of milk and milk products that are compatible with Union law. 7. Measures on fixing the Union aid for all milk and milk products and the maximum quantity eligible for Union aid provided for in paragraph 1 shall be taken by the Council in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU. 8. Member States participating in the scheme shall publicise, at the places where the food is distributed, their involvement in the aid scheme and the fact that it is subsidised by the Union.
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).
Article 27 Delegated powers
1. In order to take into account the evolution in consumption patterns for dairy products, the innovations and developments on the dairy products market, the availability of products on the different markets of the Union, and nutritional aspects, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 determining: (a) the products that are eligible for the scheme, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 26(1) and taking into account nutritional aspects; (b) the drawing up of the national or regional strategies by Member States, including accompanying measures where applicable; and (c) measures necessary for monitoring and evaluation. 2. In order to ensure the efficient and effective use of Union aid, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning: (a) rules on the eligibility for the aid of beneficiaries and applicants; (b) the requirement for the applicants to be approved by the Member States; (c) the use of dairy products benefiting from the aid in the preparation of meals in educational establishments. 3. In order to ensure that aid applicants respect their obligations, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning the requirement to lodge a security where an advance of aid is paid. 4. In order to promote awareness of the aid scheme, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 specifying the conditions in accordance with which Member States are to publicise their participation in the aid scheme and the fact that it is subsidised by the Union. 5. In order to ensure that the aid is reflected in the price at which the products are available under the scheme, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down rules on the establishment of price monitoring under the scheme.
Article 28 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 including on: (a) the procedures to ensure the respect of the maximum quantity eligible for the aid; (b) the procedures for, and the amount of, the security to be lodged where an advance payment is made; (c) the information to be supplied to Member States for approval of applicants, aid applications and payments; (d) the methods of publicising the scheme; (e) the management of price monitoring pursuant to Article 27(5). 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.
Article 29 Programmes to support the olive oil and table olives sector
1. The Union shall finance three-year work programmes to be drawn up by producer organisations recognised under Article 152, associations of producer organisations recognised under Article 156 or interbranch organisations recognised under Article 157 in one or more of the following areas: (a) market follow-up and management in the olive oil and table olives sector; (b) the improvement of the environmental impact of olive cultivation; (c) the improvement of the competitiveness of olive cultivation through modernisation; (d) the improvement of the production quality of olive oil and table olives; (e) the traceability system, the certification and protection of the quality of olive oil and table olives, in particular the monitoring of the quality of olive oils sold to final consumers, under the authority of the national administrations; (f) the dissemination of information on measures carried out by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations or interbranch organisations to improve the quality of olive oil and table olives. 2. The Union financing of the work programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall be: (a) EUR 11 098 000 per year for Greece; (b) EUR 576 000 per year for France; and (c) EUR 35 991 000 per year for Italy. 3. The maximum Union funding for the work programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall be equal to the amounts withheld by the Member States. The maximum funding of the eligible cost shall be: (a) 75 % for activities in the areas referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1; (b) 75 % for fixed assets investments and 50 % for other activities in the area referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1; (c) 75 % for the work programmes carried out in at least three third countries or non-producing Member States by recognised organisations referred to in paragraph 1 from at least two producer Member States in the areas referred to in points (e) and (f) of paragraph 1, and 50 % for the other activities in these areas. Complementary financing shall be ensured by the Member State up to 50 % of the costs not covered by the Union funding.
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 29 Programmes to support the olive oil and table olives sector):
The Union shall finance three-year work programmes to be drawn up by producer organisations recognised under Article 152, associations of producer organisations recognised under Article 156 or interbranch organisations recognised under Article 157 in one or more of the following areas: (a) market follow-up and management in the olive oil and table olives sector; (b) the improvement of the environmental impact of olive cultivation; (c) the improvement of the competitiveness of olive cultivation through modernisation; (d) the improvement of the production quality of olive oil and table olives; (e) the traceability system, the certification and protection of the quality of olive oil and table olives, in particular the monitoring of the quality of olive oils sold to final consumers, under the authority of the national administrations; (f) the dissemination of information on measures carried out by producer organisations, associations of producer organisations or interbranch organisations to improve the quality of olive oil and table olives. Work programmes drawn up for the period running from 1 April 2021 shall end on 31 December 2022. The Union financing of the work programmes referred to in paragraph 1 for 2020 shall be: (a) EUR 11 098 000 for Greece; (b) EUR 576 000 for France; (c) EUR 35 991 000 for Italy. The Union financing of the work programmes referred to in paragraph 1 for each of the years 2021 and 2022 shall be: (a) EUR 10 666 000 for Greece; (b) EUR 554 000 for France; (c) EUR 34 590 000 for Italy. The maximum Union funding for the work programmes referred to in paragraph 1 shall be equal to the amounts withheld by the Member States. The maximum funding of the eligible cost shall be: (b) 75 % for fixed assets investments and 50 % for other activities in the area referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1; 75 % for fixed assets investments and 50 % for other activities in the area referred to in point (d) of paragraph 1; (c) 75 % for the work programmes carried out in at least three third countries or non-producing Member States by recognised organisations referred to in paragraph 1 from at least two producer Member States in the areas referred to in points (e) and (f) of paragraph 1, and 50 % for the other activities in these areas. 75 % for the work programmes carried out in at least three third countries or non-producing Member States by recognised organisations referred to in paragraph 1 from at least two producer Member States in the areas referred to in points (e) and (f) of paragraph 1, and 50 % for the other activities in these areas. Complementary financing shall be ensured by the Member State up to 50 % of the costs not covered by the Union funding.
Article 30 Delegated powers
In order to ensure the efficient and effective use of the Union aid provided for in Article 29 and in order to improve the production quality of olive oil and table olives, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning: (a) in respect of the areas referred to in Article 29(1), the specific measures that can be financed by the Union aid and the activities and costs that cannot be so financed; (b) the minimum allocation by Member States of Union financing to specific areas; (c) the requirement to lodge a security when an application for approval of a work programme is submitted and where an advance payment of aid is made; (d) the criteria to be taken into account by Member States in the selection and approval of work programmes.
Article 31 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the measures necessary for the application of this Section concerning: (a) the implementation of work programmes and amendments to such programmes; (b) the payment of aid, including advance payments of aid; (c) the procedures for, and the amount of, the security to be lodged when an application for approval of a work programme is submitted and where an advance payment of aid is made. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 32 Operational funds
1. Producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector and/or their associations may set up an operational fund. The fund shall be financed by: (a) financial contributions from: (i) members of the producer organisation and/or the producer organisation itself; or (ii) associations of producer organisations through the members of those associations; (a) financial contributions from: (i) members of the producer organisation and/or the producer organisation itself; or (ii) associations of producer organisations through the members of those associations; (b) Union financial assistance, which may be granted to producer organisations, or to their associations where those associations present, manage and implement an operational programme or a partial operational programme, in accordance with the terms and conditions to be adopted by the Commission by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 37 and implementing acts pursuant to Article 38. 2. Operational funds shall be used only to finance operational programmes that have been submitted to and approved by Member States.
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 32 Operational funds):
1. Producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector and/or their associations may set up an operational fund. The fund shall be financed by: (a) financial contributions from: (i) members of the producer organisation and/or the producer organisation itself; or (ii) associations of producer organisations through the members of those associations; (b) Union financial assistance, which may be granted to producer organisations, or to their associations where those associations present, manage and implement an operational programme or a partial operational programme, in accordance with the terms and conditions to be adopted by the Commission by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 37 and implementing acts pursuant to Article 38. 2. Operational funds shall be used only to finance operational programmes that have been submitted to and approved by Member States.