DOCSLIB.ORG

Amendments to a Draft Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

European Parliament 2014-2019 Plenary sitting A8-0198/2019 7.5.2019 ***I REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, (EU) No 251/2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products, (EU) No 228/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union and (EU) No 229/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands (COM(2018)0394 – C8-0246/2018 – 2018/0218(COD)) Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Rapporteur: Eric Andrieu RR\1183604EN.docx PE623.922v02-00 EN United in diversityEN PR_COD_1amCom Symbols for procedures * Consultation procedure *** Consent procedure ***I Ordinary legislative procedure (first reading) ***II Ordinary legislative procedure (second reading) ***III Ordinary legislative procedure (third reading) (The type of procedure depends on the legal basis proposed by the draft act.) Amendments to a draft act Amendments by Parliament set out in two columns Deletions are indicated in bold italics in the left-hand column. Replacements are indicated in bold italics in both columns. New text is indicated in bold italics in the right-hand column. The first and second lines of the header of each amendment identify the relevant part of the draft act under consideration. If an amendment pertains to an existing act that the draft act is seeking to amend, the amendment heading includes a third line identifying the existing act and a fourth line identifying the provision in that act that Parliament wishes to amend. Amendments by Parliament in the form of a consolidated text New text is highlighted in bold italics. Deletions are indicated using either the ▌symbol or strikeout. Replacements are indicated by highlighting the new text in bold italics and by deleting or striking out the text that has been replaced. By way of exception, purely technical changes made by the drafting departments in preparing the final text are not highlighted. PE623.922v02-00 2/282 RR\1183604EN.docx EN CONTENTS Page DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION .................................5 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ..........................................................................................213 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT ...................................................217 POSITION IN THE FORM OF AMENDMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETARY CONTROL....................................................................................................232 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY .....................................................................................................................237 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT..............................268 PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE .................................................................281 FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE ..................................282 RR\1183604EN.docx 3/282 PE623.922v02-00 EN PE623.922v02-00 4/282 RR\1183604EN.docx EN DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, (EU) No 251/2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products, (EU) No 228/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union and (EU) No 229/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands (COM(2018)0394 – C8-0246/2018 – 2018/0218(COD)) (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0394), – having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 43(2), 114, 118(1) and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0246/2018), – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 17 October 2018 1, – having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 5 December 20182, – having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinions and position in the form of amendments of the Committee on Development, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Regional Development (A8-0198/2019), 1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; 2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal; 3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. 1 OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 214. 2 OJ C 86, 7.3.2019, p. 173. RR\1183604EN.docx 5/282 PE623.922v02-00 EN Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (1) The Communication from the (1) The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘The Future of Food the Regions entitled ‘The Future of Food and Farming’ of 29 November 2017 sets and Farming’ of 29 November 2017 sets out the challenges, objectives and out the challenges, objectives and orientations for the future Common orientations for the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2020. Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2020. These objectives include, inter alia, the These objectives include, inter alia, the need for the CAP to be more result-driven, need for the CAP to be more result-driven, to boost modernisation and sustainability, to boost, in line with the 2030 Agenda for including the economic, social, Sustainable Development and the Paris environmental and climate sustainability of Climate Agreement, modernisation and the agricultural, forestry and rural areas, sustainability, including the economic, and to help reducing the Union legislation- social, environmental and climate related administrative burden for sustainability of the agricultural, forestry beneficiaries. and rural areas (including through an increased focus on agri-forestry), to mitigate food waste and promote education on healthy eating habits, to produce healthy food, and to help reducing the Union legislation-related administrative burden for beneficiaries. The Communication also stresses the global dimension of the CAP and states the Union’s commitment to enhance Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD). Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (1a) The development of trade agreements will lead, on the one hand, to PE623.922v02-00 6/282 RR\1183604EN.docx EN increased competition between agricultural producers abroad, while at the same time opening up new opportunities for them. In order to maintain fair competition and ensure reciprocity in international trade, the Union should enforce production standards that are consistent with those established for its own producers, in particular in the environmental and health fields, subject to reciprocity. Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (2) Since the CAP needs to sharpen its (2) Since the CAP needs to sharpen its responses to the challenges and responses to the challenges and opportunities as they manifest themselves opportunities as they manifest themselves at Union, international, national, regional, at Union, international, national, regional, local and farm levels, it is necessary to local and farm levels, it is necessary to streamline the governance of the CAP and streamline the governance of the CAP and improve its delivery on the Union improve its delivery on the Union objectives and to significantly decrease the objectives and to significantly decrease the administrative burden. In the CAP based administrative burden. In the CAP based on delivery of performance (‘delivery on delivery of performance (‘delivery model’), the Union should set the basic model’), and bearing in mind as a policy parameters, such as objectives of the primary focus the objective of providing a CAP and basic requirements, while sustainable income for producers, the Member States should bear greater Union should set the basic policy responsibility as to how they meet the parameters, such as objectives of the CAP objectives and achieve targets. Enhanced and basic requirements, while Member subsidiarity makes it possible to better take States bear greater responsibility as to how into account local conditions and needs, they meet the objectives and achieve tailoring the support to maximise the targets. Enhanced subsidiarity makes it contribution
Recommended publications
  • Forbidden Fruits: the Fabulous Destiny of Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont ARCHE NOAH, Brussels and Vienna, April 2016

    Forbidden Fruits: the Fabulous Destiny of Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont ARCHE NOAH, Brussels and Vienna, April 2016

    Forbidden Fruits: The fabulous destiny of Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont ARCHE NOAH, Brussels and Vienna, April 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont are six of the wine grape varieties whose turbulent history in Europe begins with the invasion of the vermin Phylloxera (Viteus vitifoliae) in the 19th century. Because of their natural resistance to Phylloxera, these varieties from North American breeders or from spontaneous crosses, were imported, amongst others, and used to counter the plague. Common strategies were to use breeds based on North American species as rootstocks to which European Vitis vinifera varieties were grafted, as well as to use them in longer term resistance breeding programs, primarily to infuse their resistance into Vitis vinifera. These varieties were, however, also directly planted in winegrowers’ fields. This particular practice gave them the name “direct producers” or “direct producer wines”. The term came to cover native American species as such (Vitis aestivalis, V. labrusca, V. riparia, V. rupestris), but also the first generation hybrids obtained from interspecific crossings, either with each other, or with the European common species Vitis vinifera, all the while maintaining their resistance to Phylloxera. Today, direct producer varieties are grown in several European countries, and wine is still produced from their harvest. Strangely though, the planting of some of them for the purpose of wine production is forbidden. Indeed, in the course of the direct producer’s 150-year history in Europe, first national, and then European laws have adopted a dramatically restrictive and unfairly discriminatory approach to certain direct producers and to hybrids, beginning mostly from the 1930s.
  • Uhudler") Und Des Traubensafts Von Reb-Interspezieshybriden Des Südburgenlandes

    Uhudler") Und Des Traubensafts Von Reb-Interspezieshybriden Des Südburgenlandes

    MITTEILUNGEN KLOSTERNEUBURG 69 (2019): 40-58 TSCHEIK et al. CHARAKTERISIERUNG DES WEINS ("UHUDLER") UND DES TRAUBENSAFTS VON REB-INTERSPEZIESHYBRIDEN DES SÜDBURGENLANDES Gabriele Tscheik , Helmut Gangl, Maria Batusic und Wolfgang Tiefenbrunner Bundesamt für Weinbau A-7000 Eisenstadt, Gölbeszeile 1 E-Mail: [email protected] Als "Uhudler" wird der aus den Trauben von Rebhybriden verschiedener Vitis-Arten mit Standort Südburgenland (Bezirke Güssing und Jennersdorf) gekelterte Wein bezeichnet. Wein und Reben sind bislang wenig untersucht. Im Rahmen der hier vorliegenden Studie wurden die Traubensäfte verschiedener Rebhybriden chemisch analysiert, so- wie Uhudler und Edelrebweine verglichen. Aus analytischer Sicht unterscheiden sich die Traubensäfte von Uhud- ler- und Edelreben durch den bei an sich vergleichbarer Reife höheren Gehalt einiger Säuren. Dies ist allerdings bei der Sorte 'Concord' nicht der Fall. Generell reift der Traubensaft von Weißwein- rascher als der von Rotweinsorten, unabhängig davon, ob es sich um Vitis vinifera- oder Interspezies-Hybridsorten handelt. Bezüglich grundlegender Parameter wie Gehalt an Zuckern, Säuren und Alkohol sind die Uhudler im Vergleich zu anderen Weinen unauffällig, die Ethanolkonzentration ist aber mit 10 % bis 12 % eher niedrig. Der Methanolgehalt entspricht annähernd dem von rotem Edelsortenwein. Auch die Konzentration anderer Gärnebenprodukte liegt im allgemein üblichen Bereich für Weine. Die Konzentration von n-Propanol war geringer als in den zum Vergleich herangezogenen Edelsortenweinen. Das Aroma ist verglichen mit Edelsortenweißweinen sehr vielschichtig und zeichnet sich durch vergleichsweise hohe Konzentrationen von Methylanthranilat aus. Nussige, grasig-grüne Geruchskomponenten sowie Citrus-, Rum- und Honigaromen sind im Uhudler besonders ausgeprägt. Schlagwörter: Uhudler, Reb-Interspezieshybrid, Vitis vinifera, Vitis labrusca, Vitis riparia, Vitis aestivalis Characterization of wine ('Uhudler') and grape juice of interspecies vine hybrids from Southern Burgenland.
  • Forbidden Fruits: the Fabulous Destiny of Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont ARCHE NOAH, Brussels and Vienna, 2017

    Forbidden Fruits: the Fabulous Destiny of Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont ARCHE NOAH, Brussels and Vienna, 2017

    Forbidden Fruits: The fabulous destiny of Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont ARCHE NOAH, Brussels and Vienna, 2017 Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont are six of the wine grape varieties whose turbulent history in Europe begins with the invasion of the vermin Phylloxera (Viteus vitifoliae) – commonly known as “wine blight” – in the 19th century. Given their natural resistance to Phylloxera, these varieties (among others) were imported from North America during the crises to help counter the plague. They were both used as rootstocks onto which European Vitis vinifera varieties were grafted and in resistance breeding programs to infuse their Phylloxera resistance into Vitis vinifera varieties. The varieties were also directly planted in winegrowers’ fields – this particular practice gave them the name “direct producers” or “direct producer wines”. This term came to cover native American species such as Vitis aestivalis, V. labrusca, V. riparia, V. rupestris, but also the first generation hybrids obtained from crossings (either between each other or with the common European species Vitis vinifera) all the while maintaining the resistance to Phylloxera. THE CURRENT PROHIBITON OF DIRECT PRODUCER VARIETIES Today direct producer varieties are grown in several European countries and wine is still produced from their harvest. Strangely though, the planting of some of these varieties for the purpose of wine production is forbidden. Over the course of the direct producers’ 150-year history in Europe, first national and then European laws have adopted a dramatically restrictive and unfairly discriminatory approach to certain direct producers and hybrids, starting mostly in the 1930s. The main barrier to the development of these wines in current European law relates to the so-called classification system for producing “quality wine for marketing purposes”.
  • ARCHE NOAH Study

    ARCHE NOAH Study

    ARCHE NOAH’s motivations to conduct this research Even if ARCHE NOAH has been an advocate for agricultural biodiversity from its inception, the association was not specifically founded to protect the variety called “Noah”. ARCHE NOAH has been striving to preserve and develop the diversity of all cultivated plants for 25 years. We are committed to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for present and future generations, in order to ensure more efficient adaptation to local and changing environmental conditions, while preserving traditional knowledge attached to genetic resources, more specifically those linked to agricultural practices. To that end, we believe it is not enough to keep genetic resources in gene banks or scientific institutions, freezing them off for future research. ARCHE NOAH strongly advocates that these resources be cultivated, and made available to and by farmers to safeguard not only the basis of agriculture, but also the richness of flavours that enhance our quality of life. Wine grape biodiversity is thus only a portion of our actions for crop diversity, but it rightly exemplifies unjust and unsound laws adopted against socially rooted and environmentally sound practices. In the case of Austria for instance, a due legalisation of so called “direct producer varieties” would ensure the continued existence of Uhudler . It would recognise and support its economic and cultural contribution to the Burgenland region, while releasing wine growers from uncertainty and illegality. Furthermore, having had direct experience in the consumption of Uhudler for obvious research purposes, we can vouch that neither anger excesses, hysteria, tendencies to hallucinations, nor mental and physical degeneration were observed at the time of writing.
  • Uhudler-Reben") Im Weinbaugebiet Südburgenland

    Uhudler-Reben") Im Weinbaugebiet Südburgenland

    MITTEILUNGEN KLOSTERNEUBURG 67 (2017): 1-19 GANGL et al. DIE PHYTOPATHOLOGISCHEN GEGEBENHEITEN VON INTERSPEZIFISCHEN REBSORTEN ("UHUDLER-REBEN") IM WEINBAUGEBIET SÜDBURGENLAND Helmut Gangl, Gerhard Leitner, Claudia Hack, Andreas Probst und Wolfgang Tiefenbrunner Bundesamt für Weinbau A-7000 Eisenstadt, Gölbeszeile 1 E-Mail: [email protected] Als "Uhudler" wird der aus den Trauben von Rebhybriden verschiedener Vitis-Arten mit Standort Südburgenland (Bezirke Güssing und Jennersdorf) gekelterte Wein bezeichnet. Wein und Reben sind bislang in phytopathologischer Hinsicht wenig untersucht. Im Rahmen dieser Studie wurde die Verbreitung von virösen und bakteriellen Pathogenen und deren Ausbreitungspotenzial in Uhudler-Rebanlagen erhoben und mit dem von Edelreben gleichen Standorts verglichen. Die Analyse erfolgte auf 15 verschiedene Viren und drei Bakterien. In 5 % der Reben war Agrobacterium vitis nachweisbar, aufgrund der geringen Anzahl war es nicht möglich, quantitative Unterschiede zwischen Edel- und Uhudler-Reben zu untersuchen. Flavescence dorée phytoplasma ließ sich nicht und Candidatus Phytoplasma solani nur an zehn Reben nachweisen, acht davon waren Uhudler-Reben. Verschiedene Vektoren konnten gefunden wer- den. Für Flavescence dorée phytoplasma sind das die Zikaden Scaphoideus titanus und Orientus ishidae, für Candida- tus Phytoplasma solani Hyalesthes obsoletus und Reptalus quinquecostatus. S. titanus war an den meisten Standorten häufig, wobei die Nymphen in der Laubwand der Uhudler-Reben abundanter waren als in jener der Edelreben. Bei den Imagines war die Abundanz bei der Sorte 'Concord' im Vergleich zu 'Welschriesling' signifikant höher. Hyalesthes obsoletus fand sich nur in der Laubwand von Edelreben. Sechs Viren konnten festgestellt werden, das häufigste davon GLRaV I, das in Edelreben wesentlich abundanter ist als in Uhudler-Reben. Für die anderen Viren konnte kein signi- fikanter Häufigkeitsunterschied aufgezeigt werden, auch nicht für GFkV, das ebenfalls in einer großen Anzahl Reben vorhanden war.