OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Assemblée des Régions Européennes Fruitières, Légumières et Horticoles

AREFLH

The Assembly of European Regions producing Fruits, Vegetables and Ornamental Plants is a nonprofit association.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus

13 Oct 2025

Simplifying and harmonising regulatory processeswhile ensuring robust safety standardsis the only way to guarantee fair access to effective tools across all Member States. A coherent framework should also ensure that authorised alternatives are genuinely effective and practical for farmers, maintaining both productivity and affordability. In this context, biocontrol products should be recognised as a valuable complement, not a replacement, to conventional plant protection products. Their targeted and environmentally friendly nature can support integrated pest management, reduce resistance, and contribute to sustainability goals. However, they cannot yet fully match the reliability and immediacy of chemical solutions, which remain essential for managing severe or emergency pest outbreaks. Farmers therefore need access to both categories of tools to maintain productivity, food security, and competitiveness. A balanced, innovation-friendly, and harmonised regulatory frameworksupported by efficient authorisation procedureswill reinforce the EUs capacity to protect crops, consumers, and the environment, while preserving the unity and fairness of the Single Market.
Read full response

Meeting with Valérie Hayer (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Jun 2025 · CMO

Meeting with Eric Sargiacomo (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Jun 2025 · Enjeux agricoles européens

Response to Targeted amendment to the CMO and other CAP Regulations strengthening farmers position in the food supply chain

3 Mar 2025

The new initiative issued by the Commission on December 10 presents several positive elements that could significantly enhance the sector. In particular, the emphasis on democratic oversight regarding PO decisions and budgets is a welcome development, ensuring more transparency and accountability. Additionally, the focus on supporting young and new farmers is crucial for the future of agriculture, as it helps foster innovation and ensures the sector remains dynamic. Moreover, the inclusion of measures to address the challenges faced by low-concentration countries under article 52 of the SPR regulation is a commendable step towards achieving a more balanced and equitable distribution of resources. However, while these initiatives have clear potential, it is essential that we remain cautious of unintended downsides in some of the proposals. If we are to continue using these tools to foster competitiveness, we must ensure that the measures proposed do not inadvertently undermine the very goals they seek to achieve. The Common Market Organisation (CMO) is fundamentally aimed at fostering market competitiveness, and it is critical that all measures introduced within this framework support this primary goal. Efforts to enhance the market's efficiency and the position of agricultural producers should prioritise strengthening the market structure and ensuring that producer organisations can operate with the scale and bargaining power necessary to compete effectively. However, some proposed measures could inadvertently undermine the objective of market concentration under the CMO. Firstly, the definition of "farmer members" must not create artificial distinctions that exclude certain producers from leadership and decision-making within POs. Inclusivity is crucial to maintaining the collective strength of these organisations. Moreover, the recognition framework for POs must be upheld to prevent unrecognised entities from operating with the same privileges as formally recognised organisations. Allowing unrecognised POs to negotiate contracts and undertake key market activities without oversight could weaken the Common Market Organisation (CMO) and discourage formal recognition. AREFLH supports reintroducing producer groups to incentivise pre-recognition and encourage greater market organisation, particularly in less structured sectors and regions. Also, the newly proposed modifications to Article 168(6) of Regulation 2013/1308, which allow Member States to waive the requirement for a written contract under specific conditions, reflect the reality of many agricultural producers, particularly those dealing with perishable and seasonal goods. While this flexibility is essential, delegating exemption power to individual Member States risks creating market distortions and regulatory discrepancies. Differing thresholds and interpretations of key terms across Member States could undermine the coherence of the single market, complicating cross-border trade and creating an uneven playing field for producers. Ensuring greater harmonisation in this area is crucial to maintaining a fair and functional single market. Finally, the proposed 33% cap on APOs risks producing legal uncertainty and market fragmentation. Many existing APOs already exceed this threshold, and imposing such a limit disregards the fact that the relevant market for those organisations is often not just the national market but the broader EU and global markets. AREFLH strongly advocates for the repeal of this provision to ensure that APOs can continue to operate effectively without unnecessary national-level restrictions. AREFLH urges a careful reassessment of these measures to ensure they align with the overarching goal of strengthening market concentration, which remains essential for enhancing the competitiveness and resilience of the European agricultural sector.
Read full response

Response to European Water Resilience Strategy

3 Mar 2025

Water resilience is one of the most urgent challenges facing European agriculture. Without immediate action, the sector risks severe disruptions, threatening food security and economic stability. AREFLH welcomes the European Parliament's discussion on the Water Resilience Strategy and the European Environment Agency (EEA) 2024 report, which emphasise climate-resilient agriculture through measures such as reducing drainage, improving precision irrigation, and enhancing nature-based storage systems. However, these reports lack a comprehensive focus on long-term water storage, essential for mitigating droughts and preserving biodiversity. Stored water in soils, lakes, reservoirs, and groundwater can sustain agriculture, support ecosystems by mitigating soil temperatures, and balance water distribution among users. Water management solutions must be tailored to region-specific conditions. AREFLH strongly supports the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in balancing groundwater use and preventing saltwater intrusion. Additionally,it is important to stress that rainfall is more effective over wet areas than dry ones, emphasising the need to increase "green water," absorbed and evaporated by plants. As water availability becomes more unpredictable, a holistic approach linking water, energy, food, and ecosystems (WEFE Nexus) is essential for sustainable management. At the same time, the notion of a "hierarchy of use" risks creating unnecessary competition between essential needs instead of focusing on optimising water use. Water conservation must go hand in hand with efficiency, as merely reducing demand will not address climate change. Smarter uses of water encompass irrigating fields to mitigate the effects of volatile temperatures on the soil. Well-irrigated fields cool surrounding areas, reducing heat stress on crops. Soil moisture retention lowers daily temperature fluctuations by up to 4°C during heatwaves, stabilising growing conditions. Precision irrigation further enhances waters role in mitigating extreme temperatures, helping crops withstand heatwaves and frost while improving air quality. Sprinkler irrigation, in particular, provides significant cooling benefits, supporting plant resilience. Water storage is crucial as shifting rainfall patterns cause prolonged dry spells. Rapid water flow to the ocean results in lost reserves, making effective rainwater harvesting necessary. While annual rainfall remains stable or slightly higher, rainfall unpredictability requires better retention strategies. Sustainable storage solutions, such as re-meandering rivers and next-generation lakes, improve water retention. Next-generation lakes with oxygenated water flow enhance biodiversity and support reserves during droughts. Recharging groundwater is vital, as underground reserves serve as buffers against droughts. Over-extraction, urbanisation, and climate change are depleting groundwater in Southern Europe. Stricter enforcement against illegal water abstraction and improved soil porosity through grassing, biochar, and mycorrhizae can enhance retention. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) techniques, directing excess rainwater or treated wastewater into underground storage, stabilise water tables and mitigate prolonged dry periods. To strengthen agricultural water resilience, the focus must shift from demand reduction to optimisation. Efficient irrigation and soil water retention can mitigate extreme temperature fluctuations, stabilise yields, and support ecosystems. Prioritising sustainable water storage solutionssuch as aquifer recharge, multipurpose reservoirs, and soil infiltrationwill enhance agricultural resilience and biodiversity while securing Europes rural economies against climate variability.
Read full response

Meeting with Valérie Hayer (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Jan 2025 · CMO

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

27 Jan 2022 · 2022 Annual Work Programme of the EU Promotion Policy

Meeting with Christiane Kirketerp De Viron (Cabinet of Commissioner Johannes Hahn) and European agri-cooperatives and

14 Dec 2021 · Agricultural Promotion Policy

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

16 Mar 2020

The Assembly of European Horticultural Regions (AREFLH) welcomes the Commission’s ambition to enhance the sustainability of our food systems and to provide a new approach in the fight against climate change. Over the last few years, European fruit & vegetable producers have been severely impacted by the repeated occurrence of severe climatic events such as droughts, hailstorms or frosts, particularly in areas and territories that were not previously affected by such adverse climatic conditions. Moreover, climate change is creating favorable conditions for plant pests and diseases to thrive in new areas, as changes in temperature and moisture can fuel the growth of insects and fungi that can cause extensive damage to fruit and vegetable production. In this context, the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F), a key component of the New Green Deal, aims to provide new solutions to the fight against climate change through several new targets such as achieving the continent’s carbon neutrality by 2050, reducing the usage of fertilisers and synthetic plant protection products, improving the sustainability of packaging and shifting towards the consumption of sustainable foods and healthy diets. AREFLH supports the general objective of the F2F strategy as the European fruit and vegetable sector is able to provide a strong contribution to the environment through several means: mandatory environmental actions to be carried out by Producer Organisation in their operational programmes; reduction in the consumption of fertilizers and phytosanitary products through the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach and innovative precision farming technologies; strong health benefits deriving from the consumption of fruits and vegetables. The sector is ready to further contribute to achieving a more sustainable agri-food supply chain. Nevertheless, it must be clear that primary producers will need to be supported through the adoption of sound policies and the design of an effective financial mechanism in order to successfully achieve the agro-ecological transition of the current agricultural system. In this regard, AREFLH would like to take this opportunity to formulate some comments to the Farm to Fork Roadmap in the position paper attached.
Read full response

Response to Enhancing Market transparency in the agri-food chain

19 Jun 2019

AREFLH would like to take this opportunity to highlight the specificity and complexity of the fruit and vegetable market, which is deeply characterized by both variability and vulnerability. Fruit and vegetables are by definition highly perishable and strongly dependent on several factors such as climatic conditions, geopolitical context (e.g. Russian embargo), staunch competition from third country producers, elements that have an important impact on both supply and demand. The variation of these factors may lead to a high price volatility, which could in turn result in a market crisis. It also important to consider that each product category encompasses several different varieties which all have their own specificities in terms of production methods, maturity, quality and price. Additionally, one must consider that the fruit and vegetable supply chain is composed of several layers of diverse actors (producers, producer organisations and their associations. wholesalers, traders, processors, large-scale distributors, retailers...) which all experience different market situations and prices. Therefore, in order to successfully increase market transparency, legislators should take these factors into consideration and foster the development of effective tools to rebalance the current asymmetry of market and price information between producers and downstream operators. 2. Ensuring data accuracy and a homogeneous methodology for setting representative prices: AREFLH welcomes the Commission’s decision to amend Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1185 by including data collection for non-weekly price notifications and production and market information notifications in the fruit and vegetable sector. However, we would like to stress that a key aspect for the success of this initiative will be to guarantee a high degree of accuracy and reliability of the information transmitted by Member States and national operators. In order to achieve this, the methodologies chosen by Member States to set representative prices should be as standardized as possible in order to allow data comparability across EU countries. Additionally, operators should clearly and precisely indicate the typology of data transmitted (harvested, farmgate, ex-packaging station, sorted or packaged prices) and provide additional information on the characteristics and key market trends of their product (i.e. variety, quality, weather conditions and production forecasts). The diversity of the data to be transmitted is a critical factor that could be solved by propaedeutically analysing the commercial organisation of each individual Member State in order to define the most precise and relevant ones. The European Commission should also establish a review procedure in order to assess the accurateness and consistency of the results obtained by this new mechanism and apply adjustments to the data collection methodology if necessary. 3. Consider a future enlargement of the implementing regulation to additional productions AREFLH understands the Commission’s decision to include data collection for major productions such as tomatoes, apples, oranges, peaches & nectarines and processed tomatoes due to their market relevance in terms of production and consumption. However, AREFLH believes that other fruit and vegetable productions, albeit smaller, should not be definitely excluded from this regulation. On the contrary, the Commission should, in a near future, consider including additional products that would highly benefit from a more transparent environment, therefore reinforcing the position of their producers in the supply chain. The coverage for these additional products could be performed gradually and take into consideration their own market specificities (i.e. highly unbalanced relationship between upstream and downstream actors, proneness of the product to price volatility and market crises...). PLEASE SEE DOCUMENT ATTACHED
Read full response

Response to Initiative to improve the Food Supply Chain

11 Jun 2018

Please refer to the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Simplification and reporting obligation in the fruit and vegetables sector

16 Mar 2018

The Assembly of European Regions producing Fruits, Vegetables and Ornamental Plants’ (AREFLH) would like to formulate some comments and requests for further clarification on the following points: 1- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) …/... amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 A. Article 22, Paragraph 10: In Article 22, paragraph 10 is replaced as follows: "10. Where a reduction in production occurs due to a natural disaster, climatic event, animal or plant diseases or pest infestations, any insurance indemnification received in respect of harvest insurance actions covered by Section 7 of Chapter III, or equivalent actions managed by the producer organisation or its producer members, due to those causes may be included in the value of marketed production.";  AREFLH would like to request a more precise interpretation of the ‘equivalent actions’ mentioned in the abovementioned article may be included in the value of the marketed production. It is important to clarify the nature and scope of such equivalent actions. B. Article 40, Support related to mutual funds: ‘’1. Member States shall adopt detailed provisions concerning support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual fund and the replenishment of the mutual fund, as referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 33(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 2. The support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual fund referred to in paragraph 1 shall comprise both the Union financial assistance and the contribution from the producer organisation. The total amount of that support shall not exceed 5 %, 4 % or 2 % of the contribution of the producer organisation to the mutual fund in the first, second and third year of its operation, respectively. 3. A producer organisation may receive the support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual fund referred to in paragraph 1, only once and only within the three first years of the operation of the mutual fund. Where a producer organisation only asks for that support in the second or the third year of operation of the mutual fund, the support shall be 4 % or 2 % of the contribution of the producer organisation to the mutual fund in the second and third year of its operation, respectively. 4. Member States may fix ceilings for the amounts that may be received by a producer organisation as a support related to mutual funds.";  AREFLH would like to ask for clarification concerning the ‘replenishment’ of the mutual funds and its modalities. Also, can we expect an EU cofinancing at 50% for the expenses incurred for the use of the mutual funds? What will be the timeframes set for its replenishment?  Article 40 states that Member States are the designed authority for adopting the necessary provisions concerning support for the administrative cost of setting up a mutual fund and its replenishment but does not provide guidance on the eligible crisis prevention and management measures that can be implemented through such funds. AREFLH would therefore like to request more details and suggest the creation of an open list of eligible measures.These measures should, inter alia, ensure the eligibility of provisions such as: - income and credit insurance - existing crisis prevention and management measures - VMP decrease for a product in crisis: -Processing -Voluntary reduction of production Additionally, AREFLH would like to ask for clarification on whether the regulatory framework regarding the application of mutual funds will be established at national or EU level. Please refer to the attached document for the full text.
Read full response

Response to Simplification and reporting obligation in the fruit and vegetables and wine sectors

16 Mar 2018

AREFLH feedback on the draft delegated and implementing acts modifying Regulations 891/2017 and 892/2017 The Assembly of European Regions producing Fruits, Vegetables and Ornamental Plants’ (AREFLH) main missions are:  to represent its 20 member regions and 23 AOPs, from 7 European countries;  to defend the economic and social interests of the fruit, vegetable and horticultural sectors in Europe;  to foster exchanges of best practices, partnerships and joint projects between regions and professional organisations;  to actively seek new solutions for the main issues affecting the future of the fruit and vegetables production in Europe. AREFLH would like to formulate some comments and requests for further clarification on the following points: 1- Commission Implementing regulation (EU) …/... amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/892 A. Article 9, Paragraphs 6 and 7: In Article 9, paragraphs 6 and 7 are replaced by the following: "6. Producer organisations which are members of transnational associations of producer organisations shall apply for aid regarding actions that are implemented at the level of the transnational association of producer organisations in the Member State where they are recognised. The transnational association of producer organisations shall provide the Member State where it has its headquarters with a copy of the application. 7. Transnational association of producer organisations may submit an application for aid regarding actions implemented at the level of the transnational association in the Member State where that association has its headquarters. Member States shall ensure that there is no double funding risk.";  AREFLH fails to understand the new wording of paragraph 6: ‘Producer organisations which are members of transnational associations of producer organisations shall apply for aid regarding actions that are implemented at the level of the transnational association of producer organisations in the Member State where they are recognised.’ Previous Reg. 892/2017 stated: ‘Producer organisations which are members of transnational associations of producer organisations shall apply for aid in the Member State where they are recognised regarding actions implemented on the territory of that Member State’. Therefore, the wording ‘actions that are implemented at the level of the transnational association of producer organisations in the Member State where they are recognised’ needs to be elucidated as it is not clear which alterations this modification entails.  Concerning paragraph 7, more clarity is needed to understand the potential double funding risk faced by Member States. B. Article 33, Paragraph 4: Article 33, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: "4. The actions of the operational programmes shall comply with the national rules and with the national strategy of the Member State where, in accordance with Article 9, paragraphs 6 and 7, the application for aid is submitted. However, environmental and phytosanitary measures and crisis prevention and management measures shall be subject to the rules of the Member State where these measures and actions are actually carried out.";  The new wording to Article 33 p.4 also needs to be clarified depending on the interpretation given to Article 9 paragraph 6.
Read full response

Response to Agricultural de minimis aid

7 Aug 2017

With regard to the Commission's preliminary impact assessment of various options for de minimis aid increases, which would entail an amendment to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1408/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on de minimis aid in the agricultural sector, AREFLH would like to make the following observations: - The new limits to be fixed must continue to ensure that they have no effect on trade between Member States and do not distort or threaten to distort competition. - Market crises should continue to be addressed at EU level, with the EU budget. High increases in national de minimis aid amounts and limits can distort the single market and constitute a covert re-nationalization of the CAP. - The possibility of introducing aid ceilings at sectoral level must be carefully studied, although it is true that the concentration of de minimis aid in a single sector should be avoided, it should also be borne in mind that the individual aid limitation continues to operate. This limitation may be sufficient to avoid possible distorting effects on competition. - We therefore agree with the proposal to increase the de minimis aid limits that the European Commission wants to evaluate. However, the establishment of aid limits at sectoral level and their potential impact shall be carefully studied and stakeholders further consulted once the proposals on this topic have been made.
Read full response

Response to Detailed rules for the application of the Common Market Organisation in the fruits and vegetables sector

6 Feb 2017

La présente contribution reflète la position commune des membres de l’AREFLH, représentant à ce jour 17 régions et 18 A.O.P de 6 pays. L’OCM est essentielle à la filière européenne, de la production au consommateur. Elle est un outil de progrès technique (amélioration de la qualité, respect de l’environnement, sécurisation de la production) et économique (concentration de la mise en marché, adaptation à la demande , promotion). Elle permet un investissement continu, cofinancé par les producteurs. Elle contribue à mettre à la disposition des consommateurs européens des fruits et légumes abondants, variés, qualitatifs, de très grande qualité sanitaire à des prix accessibles. Fondée sur les OP, elle soutient les stratégies de groupes et un pouvoir de négociation renforcé avec l’aval. Il apparaît important de souligner les points suivants : -L’OCM vise à soutenir l’organisation de la profession et la concentration de la mise en marché par le développement des OP en interne (développement d’activité de ses membres et des filiales) et en externe avec des tiers non associés (démarches qualité, actions environnementales, mise en marché organisée). Or,l’article 12 point 2 du projet d’Acte Délégué semble aller à l’encontre de cet objectif car le plafond des 25% s’applique maintenant aux trois dérogations (vente directe, produits marginaux, produits hors activité commerciale de l’OP). Or, ce plafond sera très rapidement atteint pour des producteurs commercialisant à la fois des produits considérés comme marginaux pour l’OP et ne rentrant pas dans sa stratégie commerciale et faisant de la vente directe aux consommateurs.Ceci conduira les producteurs dépassant ce plafond à quitter les organisations de producteurs, et donc entraîner la désorganisation. -Article 13 point 2 alinéa 2 projet d’Acte Délégué : il est nécessaire de remplacer le terme « coopératives » par « personnes morales composées de producteurs ». En effet, la forme juridique des structures auxquelles l’OP externalise ses activités peut être de natures diverses. De même, l’article 26 point 4 du projet d’Acte d’Exécution reprend le terme « coopérative ». Il serait utile de préciser si ce terme englobe ou non d’autres formes juridiques. -Article 22 de l’Acte Délégué. Nécessité d’inclure la production des nouveaux membres adhérant en cours de programme dans le calcul de la VPC de l’OP. - La création et la valorisation des A.O.P régionales, nationales et transnationales devrait être encouragée par un taux d’aide plus élevé. Elles doivent pouvoir présenter une seule demande d’aide pour un programme opérationnel spécifique dans l’Etat membre où se trouve leur siège social ( article 9 par 6). Nécessité de clarifier le fonctionnement et la reconnaissance des AOP transnationales. Dans le règlement 1308/2013, les AOP peuvent prétendre à un taux de financement allant jusqu’à 4,7% de la VPC. Pour accroître leur attractivité il est nécessaire d’accorder ce taux de manière permanente. Article 31 points 5 et 6: la conservation des investissements pendant une durée de 10 ans est un non-sens économique. En effet la durée de l’amortissement est fréquemment très inférieure (logiciels, agriculture digitale, plantations soumises à des aléas..) Article 78 La période de 10 jours ouvrables pour signaler un cas de force majeure est impossible à tenir (temps nécessaire à l’évaluation des dommages). ). Il faut prévoir une période de 3 mois Propositions complémentaires : Mise en œuvre d’un système d’aide modulé pour aider plus efficacement la concentration de l’offre (principe de progression rendant le système plus accessible). Meilleur accompagnement des actions volontaires favorables à l’environnement et à la sécurité alimentaire Soutien plus important à l’emploi et la qualification du personnel en production et en structures collectives. Amélioration du dispositif de prévention et gestion de crise. Les membres de l’AREFLH réaffirment leur attachement au maintien de l’OCM
Read full response

Response to Specific Common Market Organisation rules in the fruits and vegetables sector

6 Feb 2017

La présente contribution reflète la position commune des membres de l’AREFLH, représentant 17 régions et 18 A.O.P de 6 pays. L’OCM est essentielle à la filière européenne, de la production au consommateur. Elle est un outil de progrès technique (amélioration de la qualité, respect de l’environnement, sécurisation de la production) et économique (concentration de la mise en marché, adaptation à la demande , promotion). Elle permet un investissement continu, cofinancé par les producteurs. Elle contribue à mettre à la disposition des consommateurs européens des fruits et légumes abondants, variés, qualitatifs, de très grande qualité sanitaire à des prix accessibles. Fondée sur les OP, elle soutient les stratégies de groupes et un pouvoir de négociation renforcé avec l’aval. Il apparaît important de souligner les points suivants : -L’OCM vise à soutenir l’organisation de la profession et la concentration de la mise en marché par le développement des OP en interne (développement d’activité de ses membres et des filiales) et en externe avec des tiers non associés (démarches qualité, actions environnementales, mise en marché organisée). Or,l’article 12 point 2 du projet d’Acte Délégué semble aller à l’encontre de cet objectif car le plafond des 25% s’applique maintenant aux trois dérogations (vente directe, produits marginaux, produits hors activité commerciale de l’OP). Or, ce plafond sera très rapidement atteint pour des producteurs commercialisant à la fois des produits considérés comme marginaux pour l’OP et ne rentrant pas dans sa stratégie commerciale et faisant de la vente directe aux consommateurs.Ceci conduira les producteurs dépassant ce plafond à quitter les organisations de producteurs, et donc entraîner la désorganisation. -Article 13 point 2 alinéa 2 projet d’Acte Délégué : il est nécessaire de remplacer le terme « coopératives » par « personnes morales composées de producteurs ». En effet, la forme juridique des structures auxquelles l’OP externalise ses activités peut être de natures diverses. De même, l’article 26 point 4 du projet d’Acte d’Exécution reprend le terme « coopérative ». Il serait utile de préciser si ce terme englobe ou non d’autres formes juridiques. -Article 22 de l’Acte Délégué. Nécessité d’inclure la production des nouveaux membres adhérant en cours de programme dans le calcul de la VPC de l’OP. - La création et la valorisation des A.O.P régionales, nationales et transnationales devrait être encouragée par un taux d’aide plus élevé. Elles doivent pouvoir présenter une seule demande d’aide pour un programme opérationnel spécifique dans l’Etat membre où se trouve leur siège social ( article 9 par 6). Nécessité de clarifier le fonctionnement et la reconnaissance des AOP transnationales. Dans le règlement 1308/2013, les AOP peuvent prétendre à un taux de financement allant jusqu’à 4,7% de la VPC. Pour accroître leur attractivité il est nécessaire d’accorder ce taux de manière permanente. Article 31 points 5 et 6: la conservation des investissements pendant une durée de 10 ans est un non-sens économique. En effet la durée de l’amortissement est fréquemment très inférieure (logiciels, agriculture digitale, plantations soumises à des aléas..) Article 78 La période de 10 jours ouvrables pour signaler un cas de force majeure est impossible à tenir (temps nécessaire à l’évaluation des dommages). ). Il faut prévoir une période de 3 mois Propositions complémentaires : Mise en œuvre d’un système d’aide modulé pour aider plus efficacement la concentration de l’offre (principe de progression rendant le système plus accessible). Meilleur accompagnement des actions volontaires favorables à l’environnement et à la sécurité alimentaire. Soutien plus important à l’emploi et la qualification du personnel en production et en structures collectives. Amélioration du dispositif de prévention et gestion de crise. Les membres de l’AREFLH réaffirment leur attachement au maintien de l’OCM.
Read full response

Meeting with Elisabetta Siracusa (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

5 Dec 2016 · Agri issues