REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy

(4a) Moreover, in order to ensure that the restructuring process can be fully financed, it is important that all proceeds resulting from the transfer of 1 million tonnes of sugar additional to the quota be paid back into the restructuring fund.

(5) An important economic incentive for sugar undertakings with the lowest productivity to give up their quota production in the form of an adequate restructuring aid during a limited period should be introduced. To this effect, a restructuring aid should be set up that creates an incentive to abandon production and renounce the quotas concerned, at the same time allowing to take into due account the respect of social and environmental commitments linked to the abandon of production. The aid should be available during four marketing years with the aim to reduce production to the extent necessary to reach a balanced market situation in the Community.

(5) An important economic incentive for sugar undertakings wishing to give up their quota production in the form of an adequate restructuring aid during a limited period should be introduced. To this effect, a restructuring aid should be set up that creates an incentive to abandon production and renounce the quotas concerned, at the same time allowing economic alternatives to be developed for the regions concerned whilst taking into due account the respect of social and environmental commitments linked to the abandon of production (protection of sugar producers' employees and farmers). The aid should be available during four marketing years with the aim to reduce production to the extent necessary to reach a balanced market situation in the Community.

(5a) Abandonment of production will automatically go hand in hand with the abandonment of delivery rights enjoyed by growers. It will have a detrimental effect on farmers’ investments, particularly as regards the specific material required for farming sugar beet and chicory. To ensure a dynamic restructuring process, such producers should also be allowed to benefit from the sector's restructuring aid. Therefore, a share of at least 50% of the restructuring aid should be granted to sugar beet and chicory growers in order to offset the resulting loss of capital. Furthermore, the allocation of restructuring aid to growers and producers should be conditional on the signing of an agreement within the trade.

Justification

In order to encourage the diversification of energy sources and to provide new alternative openings to the sugar industry, the current restructuring scheme must offer sugar factories the opportunity of developing their potential as bioethanol producers by converting their production facilities with distilleries. In this specific case, therefore, the abandonment of sugar quotas must not be conditional on destroying industrial facilities. It should be possible for the distilleries required for the production of alcohol for use as fuel to be set up by adding to existing industrial tools, with a view to limiting the level of investment required for this operation and in order to ensure continuity of activity in existing factories.

Or. en

Justification

The reform of the CMO sugar has also serious implications for employees in sugar farming and the sugar industry.

Or. pt

Justification

In Member States which have only one refinery, partial abandonment of the quota should be possible, as the reduction in the Community price for sugar could lead to a significant drop in supplies of the raw material from the Member State concerned, so that the refinery's critical production level is not reached. It should therefore be possible to abandon only the part of the quota which can no longer be produced using national material, making use of the restructuring fund in order to adapt the plant to processing from sugar cane from third countries, thus making up the shortfall in national production.

The restructuring of the sector must include the proposal of other sources of employment and income.

Or. de

Justification

The purpose of this amendment is to prevent undertakings which have received an extra isoglucose quota without payment pursuant to Article 9 of the new organisation of the market in sugar from subsequently being entitled to compensation for giving up this quota.

2. Abandonment of production shall require:

2. Abandonment of production, on which access to the restructuring scheme is dependent, shall require:

(a) the renunciation of the relevant quota after consultations to be conducted in the framework of the relevant agreements within the trade,

(a) the renunciation of the relevant quota after consultations to be conducted in the framework of the relevant agreements within the trade; in the absence of agreements within the trade, the Member State in question shall take the necessary measures to protect the interests of the parties concerned,

(b) the definitive and total stop of production in at least one factory,

(b) the definitive and total stop of production in at least one factory,

(c) the closure of the factory or the factories concerned and the dismantling of the production facilities thereof, and

(c) the closure of the factory or the factories concerned and the dismantling of the production facilities thereof,

(d) the restoring of the good environmental conditions of the factory site and the facilitation of redeployment of the workforce.

(d) the restoring of the good environmental conditions of the factory site and the opening up of economic prospects for the region and the creation of jobs, in particular through the possible conversion of the premises for social or cultural purposes,

(da) the implementation of measures (to be defined in agreements between undertakings, with trade union involvement and pursuant to national law) to facilitate the redeployment of the workforce or compensation for job losses on the part of workers of the undertakings concerned,

(db) the signing of an agreement within the trade concluded with sugar beet and chicory growers or their official representatives and concerning the share of restructuring aid to be allocated to growers, and

(dc) the submission of a restructuring plan and its approval by the relevant authorities of the Member State concerned. This agreement shall be signed inter alia by sugar beet and chicory growers, as regards their aid entitlements, and by employees of sugar factories, as regards labour-related matters.

Justification

In order to encourage the development of the production of bioethanol for energy purposes, the initial conditions for abandonment of production (paragraph 2) must be modified to suit this particular eventuality. These specific conditions include, in particular, the supplementary obligation to transform industrial facilities into bioethanol distilleries in order to ensure that the aid granted for restructuring is indeed used to this end. By the same token, for obvious reasons of continuity of industrial activity and limiting the level of investments, the definitive and total stop of production, the closure of factories and the dismantling of production facilities are not required. Furthermore, the restoration of good environmental conditions is no longer necessary.

Or. fr

Justification

Amendment for the purposes of consistency, which makes payment of financial aid conditional upon the fulfilment of special conditions (laid down in paragraph 2 a) under which the restructuring scheme can contribute towards developing production tools for bioethanol for use as a fuel.

Justification

The level of restructuring aid must be re-evaluated in order to bring it into line with the new price cuts and to maintain the incentive aspect of the restructuring scheme. A minimum threshold should also be set to fix the share of aid for growers in order to guarantee that they are properly compensated. This threshold can be set at 10 % without removing the economic incentive for industrial businesses.

Or. fr

Justification

Farmers whose factories renounce a fructose syrup quota should be able to receive from the first year onwards the € 4.68 per tonne to which beet growers are entitled (Article 4). Chicory growers are in fact mentioned in recital 7 but do not appear in Article 4.

Justification

Amendment for the purposes of consistency aimed at bringing the text into line with the changes made to Article 3 of the regulation in the new paragraph 2a.

Title

Proposal for a Council regulation establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy

References

COM(2005)0263 – C6-0245/2005 – 2005/0120(CNS)

Committee responsible

AGRI

Opinion by
  Date announced in plenary

INTA

6.9.2005

Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary

No

Drafts(wo)man
  Date appointed

Béla Glattfelder

12.5.2005

Previous drafts(wo)man

Discussed in committee

29.8.2005

12.9.2005

Date adopted

23.11.2005

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

23

2

0

Members present for the final vote

Jean-Pierre Audy, Enrique Barón Crespo, Daniel Caspary, Giulietto Chiesa, Christofer Fjellner, Glyn Ford, Béla Glattfelder, Jacky Henin, Caroline Lucas, Erika Mann, Helmuth Markov, David Martin, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Georgios Papastamkos, Bogusław Rogalski, Tokia Saïfi, Peter Šťastný, Zbigniew Zaleski

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Panagiotis Beglitis, Danutė Budreikaitė, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Albert Deß, Elisa Ferreira, István Szent-Iványi

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Paul Rübig

Comments (available in one language only)

...

EU producers

(net of levy)

Restructuring Levies

ACP producers

Reference price (€/t)

655[1]

523.7

2006/07

505.5 (-22.8%)

126.4

496.8 (-5.1%)

2007/08

385.5 (-41.2%)

91.0

394.9 (-24.6%)

2008/09

385.5 (-41.2%)

64.5

372.9 (-28.8%)

2009/10

385.5 (-41.2%)

0

319.5 (-39%)

EU producers

(net of levy)

Restructuring Levies

ACP producers

Reference price (€/t)

631.9

523.7

2006/07

505.5 (-22.8%)

126.40

496.8 (-5.1%)

2007/08

385.5 (-41.2%)

108.7

409.5 (-21.8%)

2008/09

385.5 (-41.2%)

91.0

394.9 (-24.6%)

2009/10

385.5 (-41.2%)

77.75

383.9 (-26.7%)

2010/11

385.5 (-41.2%)

64.5

372.9 (-28.8%)

2011/12

385.5 (-41.2%)

43.0

355.1 (-32.2%)

2012/13

385.5 (-41.2%)

21.5

337.3 (-35.6%)

2013/14

385.5 (-41.2%)

0

319.5 (-39%)

Text proposed by the Commission[2]

Amendments by Parliament

(-1) The EU should seek to abolish export subsidies. Such subsidies have an adverse impact on the world market price and are thus detrimental to developing countries.

Justification

Modification of the internal price is needed to extend application of the production levy over a longer period. This has the effect of making the price cut to ACP producers more gradual and also providing additional funds for restructuring of the sugar sectors of ACP sugar-producing countries and their diversification.

Given that discussions are continuing on the level of the price cut, adoption of the proposed system for raising funds through a modification of the restructuring levy system should also be considered possible in the event of a lower price cut.

Justification

This amendment gives effect to the more gradual price-cut for ACP producers.

Given that discussions are continuing on the level of the price cut, adoption of the proposed system for raising funds through a modification of the restructuring levy system should also be considered possible in the event of a lower price cut.

Article 12a

Outlets for sugar surpluses

The Commission shall carry out a study in order to identify transitional outlets enabling sugar surpluses to be used for energy purposes.

Article 12b

Abolition of C-sugar exports

The export of C-sugar to the world market shall be abolished.

Scope of export refunds

deleted

1. To the extent necessary to enable the products listed in Article 1(1) (b) and (c) to be exported without further processing or in the form of processed products listed in Annex VII, on the basis of world market quotations or prices of sugar and within the limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty, the difference between those quotations or prices and prices in the Community may be covered by export refunds.

2. Provision may be made for export refunds to be granted on the products listed in Article 1(1)(d), (e) and (g) and exported without further processing or in the form of processed products listed in Annex VII.

In that case, the amount of the refund per 100 kg of dry matter shall be fixed taking particular account of:

(a) the refund applicable to exports of products falling within CN code 1702 30 91,

(b) the refund applicable to exports of the products listed in Article 1(1)(c),

(c) the economic aspects of the planned exports.

3. The export refund for raw sugar of the standard quality defined in Annex I may not exceed 92% of that granted for white sugar. However, this limit shall not apply to export refunds to be fixed for candy sugar.

4. Export refunds on the products exported in the form of processed products listed in Annex VII may not be higher than those applicable to the same products exported without further processing.

Export refund fixation

deleted

1. The quantities which may be exported with an export refund shall be allocated by the method which:

(a) is most suited to the nature of the product and the situation on the market in question, allowing the most efficient possible use of the resources available, account being taken of the efficiency and structure of Community exports without creating discrimination between the operators concerned and notably between large and small operators;

(b) is least cumbersome administratively for operators, account being taken of administration requirements.

2. Export refunds shall be the same for the whole Community. They may vary according to destination, where the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets make this necessary.

Export refunds shall be fixed in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 39(2).

Refunds may be fixed:

(a) at regular intervals;

(b) by invitation to tender for products in respect of which provision was made for that procedure in the past.

Export refunds fixed at regular intervals, may, if necessary, be amended in the interval by the Commission, at the request either of a Member State or on its own initiative.

3. Export refunds on products referred to in Article 32(1) and (2) and exported without further processing shall be granted only on application and on presentation of an export licence.

The export refund applicable to products referred to in Article 32(1) and (2) exported without further processing shall be that applicable on the day of application for the licence and, in the case of a differentiated refund, that applicable on the same day:

(a) for the destination indicated on the licence,

or,

(b) where appropriate, for the actual destination if this differs from the destination indicated on the licence, in which case, the amount applicable shall not exceed the amount applicable to the destination indicated on the licence.

4. The scope of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article may be extended to apply to the products in question that are exported in the form of processed products listed in Annex VII, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93[3]. Detailed implementing rules shall be adopted in accordance with that procedure.

Justification

This amendment ensures that additional funds raised under the restructuring levy will be used to ease the burden of restructuring in ACP countries.

Justification

This amendment extends the application of the levy until 2013 hence providing for a more gradual price cut for ACP producers and generating increased funds for restructuring in ACP countries.

Title

Proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector

and

proposal for a Council regulation establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy

References

(COM(2005)0263 – C6‑0243/2005 – 2005/0118(CNS))
(COM(2005)0263 – C6‑0245/2005 – 2005/0120(CNS))

Committee responsible

AGRI

Opinion by
  Date announced in plenary

DEVE
6.09.2005

Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary

Drafts(wo)man
  Date appointed

Glenys Kinnock
21.6.2005

Discussed in committee

12.7.2005

29.8.2005

5.9.2005

Date adopted

5.10.2005

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

24

0

1

Members present for the final vote

Alessandro Battilocchio, Margrietus van den Berg, Thierry Cornillet, Fernando Fernández Martín, Michael Gahler, Filip Andrzej Kaczmarek, Hélène Goudin, Glenys Kinnock, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Maria Martens, Manolis Mavrommatis, Gay Mitchell, Toomas Savi, Pierre Schapira, Frithjof Schmidt, Jürgen Schröder, María Elena Valenciano Martínez-Orozco, Paul Verges, Jan Zahradil, Mauro Zani

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Milan Gaľa, Alain Hutchinson, Linda McAvan, Manolis Mavrommatis, Karin Scheele, Anders Wijkman

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Comments (data available in one language only)

...

Title

Proposal for a Council regulation establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy

References

COM(2005)0263 – C6‑0245/2005 – 2005/0120(CNS)

Date of consulting Parliament

25.7.2005

Committee responsible
  Date announced in plenary

AGRI
6.9.2005

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)
  Date announced in plenary

BUDG
6.9.2005

CONT
6.9.2005

DEVE
6.9.2005

REGI
6.9.2005

INTA
6.9.2005

Not delivering opinion(s)
  Date of decision

BUDG
15.11.2005

CONT
12.7.2005

REGI
11.7.2005

Enhanced cooperation
  Date announced in plenary

Jean-Claude Fruteau
2.9.2005

Rapporteur(s)
  Date appointed

13.7.2005

12.9.2005

11.10.2005

23.11.2005

29.11.2005

Previous rapporteur(s)

29.11.2005

Simplified procedure – date of decision  Date of decision

+:

–:

0:

27

3

0

Legal basis disputed
  Date of JURI opinion

Katerina Batzeli, Thijs Berman, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Michl Ebner, Duarte Freitas, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Bogdan Golik, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, María Esther Herranz García, Elisabeth Jeggle, Diamanto Manolakou, Mairead McGuinness, María Isabel Salinas García, Agnes Schierhuber, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Marc Tarabella, Kyösti Tapio Virrankoski

Financial endowment amended
  Date of BUDG opinion

María del Pilar Ayuso González, Bernadette Bourzai, Ilda Figueiredo, Béla Glattfelder, Vincenzo Lavarra, Astrid Lulling, Bernadette Vergnaud

Parliament to consult European Economic and Social Committee
– date decided in plenary

Inés Ayala Sender, Anne Ferreira

Parliament to consult Committee of the Regions – date decided in plenary

6.12.2005

Discussed in committee

...

Date adopted

Result of final vote

Members present for the final vote

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Date tabled

Comments (available in one language only)