Report consultation Organic farming - Sign In

Directorate E - Horizontal Policies and Networks
Unit E2 – Subsidiarity Network/Europe 2020
Monitoring Platform/Covenant of Mayors/EGTC
REPORT ON THE CONSULTATION OF
THE SUBSIDIARITY EXPERT GROUP AND
THE SUBSIDIARITY MONITORING NETWORK:
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL ON ORGANIC PRODUCTION AND LABELLING OF ORGANIC
PRODUCTS
COM(2014) 180
http://subsidiarity.cor.europa.eu
Disclaimer:
This report does not seek to reproduce all the contributions to the consultation, but rather to synthesise
the main points. The report is not binding on the Committee of the Regions and does not prejudice the
final content of its relevant opinions.
The EU's Assembly of Regional and Local Representatives
Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101 — 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel — BELGIQUE/BELGIË — Tel. +32 22822211 — Fax +32 22822325
EN
-1-
Table of contents
1.
Main findings of the consultation......................................................................................................... 2
2.
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4
3.
Synthesis of contributions .................................................................................................................... 5
3.1
Application and enforcement of EU organic legislation by local and regional authorities
(question 1) ............................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
4.
5.
Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.1
Removal of exceptions (question 2)...................................................................................... 6
3.2.2
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance (question 3) ............................ 9
3.3
Proportionality (question 4) ........................................................................................................ 12
3.4
Delegated and implementing acts (question 5) ........................................................................... 14
3.5
Additional remarks...................................................................................................................... 17
Other input ......................................................................................................................................... 19
4.1
National parliaments ................................................................................................................... 19
4.2
Regional parliaments .................................................................................................................. 20
4.3
Council policy debate on organic farming .................................................................................. 21
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 22
Appendix I .................................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendix II: List of respondents ................................................................................................................ 29
Appendix III: Contributions ........................................................................................................................ 31
…/…
-2-
1. Main findings of the consultation
The European Commission has recently issued a proposal for a new Regulation on organic production
and the labelling of organic products.1 This consultation on subsidiarity and proportionality-related
aspects of the draft regulation has been carried out in the framework of the CoR Subsidiarity Work
Programme 2014. The Subsidiarity Expert Group and Partners of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network
have thus been invited to provide a subsidiarity analysis on relevant aspects of the draft regulation. The
outcome of the consultation will feed into the subsidiarity and proportionality section of the CoR
opinion, which is scheduled for adoption at the December 2014 plenary session. The contributions to the
consultation show that most respondents oppose removing the possibility for Member States to grant
exceptions to the rules governing organic production, but favour a harmonisation of controls and a
common approach to non-compliance with the rules. A large majority of the respondents believe that the
extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided for in the proposal are a
cause for concern.
•
The majority of respondents2 are opposed to the removal of exceptions and do not believe that
such a measure is necessary to achieve the intended objectives. They refer to the need to
maintain a degree of flexibility and leeway for national and regional authorities in order to
respond to specific circumstances. They also raise the potential negative impact on the
sustainability of organic production in the EU and call for the gradual elimination of exceptions.
The respondents in favour of such a removal mainly stress the need for a clear and
uncomplicated legal framework and fair competition.
•
According to the prevailing opinion of respondents3, there is a need for harmonisation of the
rules on controls and response to non-compliance. Respondents mainly stress fair competition
and equal treatment as arguments in favour of harmonisation. The minority of respondents that
are against highlight the lack of added value of EU action in this regard and the increased
administrative burden and costs.
•
The majority of respondents4 believe that the proposal goes further than necessary and that
there are other less restrictive ways of achieving the intended objectives. They insist that the
review of the existing legislation is premature and too far-reaching. Since it involves updating an
existing regulation, the proportionality test must appraise the content and not only the choice of
1
COM(2014) 180
Ten out of thirteen respondents, see section 3.2.1
3
Nine out of thirteen respondents, see section 3.2.2
4
Seven out of thirteen respondents, see section 3.3
2
…/…
-3legal instrument. Those who responded that the proposal did not raise any proportionality
concerns did not, for the most part, give a reason for their reply. The importance of avoiding
differing interpretations and 28 different systems throughout the EU was cited in this respect.
•
5
Finally, a large majority of the respondents5 believe that the numerous delegations provided
for in the draft regulation are a cause for concern. They argue that the delegations are
excessive, unspecific and may concern essential elements of the legislation. It is argued that the
draft regulation is not specific enough and thus difficult to assess on account of all the
delegations. Some responded that the delegations may give rise to subsidiarity-related concerns
since the delegated acts would not be subject to subsidiarity checks by national and regional
parliaments. Furthermore, it was feared that legal certainty could not be guaranteed under such
circumstances.
Ten out of thirteen respondents, see section 3.4
…/…
-4-
2. Introduction
On 24 March 2014, the European Commission published a proposal for a new Regulation on organic
production and the labelling of organic products6. The proposal is meant to revise the current legal
framework (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007) in order to address shortcomings in the existing system. Since
the EU organic market has quadrupled in size over the last ten years, the Commission believes that the
rules in force need to be updated and adjusted so that the sector can develop and respond to future
challenges. The proposal focuses on three main objectives: maintaining consumer confidence,
maintaining producer confidence, and making it easier for farmers to make the shift to organic farming.
The aim is for organic farming to remain close to its principles and objectives so that public demands in
terms of the environment and quality are met.
Specifically, the Commission proposes:
•
•
•
•
•
to strengthen and harmonise rules, both in the EU and for imported products, by removing many
of the current exceptions in terms of production and controls;
to strengthen controls by making them risk-based;
to make it easier for small farmers to take up organic farming by introducing the possibility for
them to sign up to a group certification system;
to better address the international dimension of trade in organic products with the addition of new
provisions on exports; and
to simplify the legislation to reduce administrative costs for farmers and strengthen transparency.
As the review of the political and legal framework for organic production is on the CoR Subsidiarity
Work Programme for 2014, the Subsidiarity Expert Group and Partners of the Subsidiarity
Monitoring Network (SMN) were consulted in order to provide a subsidiarity analysis on relevant
aspects of the Commission proposal. The consultation ran from 16 April to 26 May 2014 and a total of
thirteen contributions were received. This targeted consultation provides technical input for the CoR
opinion on the policy package on organic production, which is currently being drafted and is scheduled
for adoption at the December 2014 plenary session. All contributions to the consultation have been
forwarded to the rapporteur. The present report will be shared with the rapporteur, Hester Maij
(NL/EPP), and with the European Commission, and it will also be published on the CoR subsidiarity
website.
6
COM(2014) 180
…/…
-5-
Of the thirteen contributions7 received, nine were submitted by SMN partners, three by members of the
Subsidiarity Expert Group and one by a local stakeholder. As regards the administrative level of the
contributors, eight replies were submitted by/on behalf of regional governments or parliaments; two by
the subsidiarity experts nominated by REGLEG8 and the CoR interregional group "Regions with
legislative power" respectively; one by a regional authority without legislative powers; one by the
subsidiarity expert appointed by the Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania; and one by a local
agency. Geographically speaking, the contributions were spread among the Member States as follows:
four replies from Spain, two from Italy and one each from Austria9, Bulgaria, Finland, Germany10,
Lithuania, Portugal and Sweden.
3. Synthesis of contributions
3.1
Application and enforcement of EU organic legislation by local and regional authorities
(question 1)11
The majority of the local and regional authorities represented by respondents replying to this
question are involved in either implementing or enforcing EU organic legislation.
Six respondents12 wrote that their local/regional authority was involved in applying EU organic
legislation, e.g. the power to grant exceptions or similar prerogatives delegated from central authorities.
Five respondents13 gave a negative response to the question. The expert representing the interregional
group "Regions with legislative powers" and the expert representing REGLEG both responded that most
of the regions belonging to their respective group/association were involved in applying EU organic
legislation.
Seven respondents14 reported that their local/regional authority was involved in enforcing EU organic
legislation, e.g. surveillance and controls. Four respondents15 gave a negative response.
7
See the list of respondents in Appendix II; the contributions can be found in Appendix III.
Conference of European Regions with Legislative Power
Contribution of the SEG member appointed by REGLEG.
10
Contribution of the SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power".
11
See Appendix I for the questionnaire.
12
Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets), Government of Åland, Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality
Institute), Catalan Regional Assembly, Basque Government and Lombardy Regional Assembly.
13
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency), Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania, Extremadura Regional Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Regional Assembly and Region Västra Götaland.
14
Government of Åland, Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality Institute), Extremadura Regional Assembly, Catalan Regional
Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly, Basque Government and Lombardy Regional Assembly.
15
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency), Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets), Association of Local Authorities in
Lithuania and Region Västra Götaland.
8
9
…/…
-6The expert representing the interregional group "Regions with legislative powers" and the expert
representing REGLEG both responded that most of the regions concerned were involved in enforcing EU
organic legislation.
3.2
Subsidiarity
3.2.1
Removal of exceptions (question 2)
Although respondents were rather divided on the proposal to remove exceptions, a majority did not
believe that removing exceptions was necessary to achieve the intended objectives, since, in their
opinion, a degree of flexibility and leeway for national and regional authorities should be
maintained in order to respond to specific circumstances. Some also highlighted the potential
negative impact on the sustainability of organic production in the EU and called for the gradual
phasing out of exceptions. The respondents in favour of removal generally stressed the need for a
clear and uncomplicated legal framework and fair competition.
The proposed removal of exceptions concerns, inter alia, the obligation to manage agricultural holdings
in their entirety in compliance with the requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to
use exclusively organic agricultural ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; and the
possibility of exempting certain types of retailers from the application of the regulation. The participants
were asked whether they believed that removing exceptions was necessary in order to achieve a) fair
competition among operators; b) improved or maintained consumer confidence; c) a clear and
uncomplicated legal framework; and d) a trade free from obstacles.
Seven respondents16 were entirely or partly in favour of removing exceptions and believed that it was
necessary to achieve at least some of the aforementioned objectives.
Three of them17 believed that removing exceptions was necessary in order to achieve all of the objectives,
whereas four18 did not believe it was necessary with regard to one or several of the objectives. The
following arguments were put forward as regards the necessity and added value of removing exceptions:
•
Clarification and simplification of production rules would lead to fairer competition as no "short
cuts" could be granted to groups of operators. A considerable number of producers that did not
follow the rules would no longer be able to use exceptions to this end19.
16
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency), Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets), Association of Local Authorities in
Lithuania, Extremadura Regional Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly, Basque Government and Lombardy Regional Assembly.
17
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency), Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets) and Extremadura Regional Assembly.
18
Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly, Basque Government and Lombardy Regional
Assembly.
19
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly, Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets), SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency).
…/…
-7•
The respondent from Lithuania argued that the proposed regulation and the removal of Member
States' right to grant exceptions would in theory allow for fairer competition, but underlined that
subsequently it would be necessary to ensure that operators from outside the EU were subject to
the same rules in order to qualify for the organic label.
•
The respondent from Bulgaria21 argued that it would be easier to resolve legal disputes if the legal
22
framework were clear and uncomplicated. Furthermore, a respondent from Italy considered that
a simplified legal framework would hopefully speed up implementation since there would no
longer be any need for technical consultations or opinions to decide whether to allow specific
exceptions. A clearer text was less likely to be subject to differing national interpretations,
although it was too early to draw any conclusions.
•
One respondent from Spain23 was of the opinion that neither internal supply nor the legislative
framework had been adapted to the expansion of the organic market, since the rules of production
did not fully take account of the development of consumer and public expectations and concerns.
•
One respondent from Italy24, whilst replying to the question in the affirmative and agreeing with
the objective of gradually eliminating exceptions, pointed out that simplifying the legislative
framework solely by setting out principles and abolishing exceptions would not necessarily help
to make the sector stronger, but could in fact result in lower rates of organic production in
Europe, higher imports, less local advantage in environmental and economic terms and failure to
meet consumer demand.
20
Ten respondents25 believed that removing exceptions, i.e. reinforcing the existing rules, was not needed to
achieve one or several of the intended objectives. Six26 did not believe that the proposed EU measure was
needed to achieve any of the objectives, whereas four27 believed that such a removal was needed to attain
certain objectives. Respondents who replied in the negative highlighted the following aspects:
•
Several respondents argued that it was necessary to maintain a certain level of flexibility, since
conditions for organic production varied greatly between European regions. A degree of leeway
should thus be allowed for organic production to continue under certain circumstances related to
climatic conditions, catastrophic events, and geographic and structural conditions that may cause
20
Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency)
22
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly
23
Extremadura Regional Assembly
24
Lombardy Regional Assembly
25
Government of Åland, the SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power", the SEG member
appointed by REGLEG, Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania, Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality Institute), Catalan
Regional Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Regional Assembly, Region Västra Götaland, Basque Government and Lombardy Regional Assembly.
26
Government of Åland, the SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power", the SEG member
appointed by REGLEG, Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality Institute), Catalan Regional Assembly and Region Västra Götaland.
27
Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania, Friuli-Venezia Regional Assembly, Basque Government and Lombardy Regional
Assembly.
21
…/…
-8sudden bottlenecks in the supply of organic inputs, such as seed and feed. Such situations could
occur suddenly and affect only certain regions in a Member State and it was therefore preferable
to maintain the possibility of applying national or regional rules. The current possibility for
Member States to grant exceptions served as a means of levelling out differences between regions
28
throughout the EU .
•
Eliminating the possibility to adapt to local and regional conditions (environmental, structural,
agronomic, economic, etc.) by means of exceptions could have a negative impact on the
sustainability of organic production. It was stressed, however, that such exceptions should always
be granted on a temporary and exceptional basis and in accordance with criteria and procedures
established and monitored by the competent authorities29.
•
Respondents also argued that the exceptions currently granted with regard to seeds and fodder,
etc., were allowed because the market did not meet the real needs of professionalised production,
as there were not enough producers of organic inputs. One respondent from Spain30 therefore
maintained that before removing exceptions, a specific action plan should be drawn up to address
the present shortcomings in organic production. Otherwise, the effect would be to drive out many
producers and thus seriously reduce the market presence of organic produce. This view was
shared by one Italian respondent31, who underlined the risk of lower rates of organic production
as a result of abolished derogations.
•
One respondent from Spain32, pointed out that the proposal did not retain any criteria for ensuring
proportionality between operators and regions, or for ensuring the viability of existing farms in
the organic sector. The objective would thus not be achieved, since the removal of exceptions
(e.g. for parallel production), would apply to some arable and livestock farmers but not to
processors and importers.
•
The obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production was considered excessive as regards mixed farms
(arable and livestock)33 .
•
The SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power"
underlined the difficulties (red tape, costs, etc.) for small and medium-sized organic businesses
caused by withdrawing the possibility of exemptions. For instance, even small specialist shops
28
Region Västra Götaland, Government of Åland, the SEG member appointed by REGLEG and the SEG member appointed by the CoR
interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power".
Catalan Regional Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly
30
Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality Institute)
31
Lombardy Regional Assembly
32
Basque Government
33
Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality Institute).
29
…/…
-934
carrying only one single organic product would have to register and be certified . This view was
shared by the REGLEG expert, who argued that the existing EU organic legislation worked well
and that the revised regulation would not add any value, especially not as far as consumer
confidence was concerned, and no administrative simplification could be detected. In the same
vein, the respondent from Lithuania did not see any correlation between a removal of exceptions
and consumer confidence35
•
3.2.2
Several respondents would prefer a gradual, step-by-step removal of exceptions36. The German
expert contended that if exceptions were to be removed, this should be done in a gradual, realistic
and differentiated way. A wholesale revision of the rules on organic farming would be
counterproductive and stand in the way of the intended development, not least because it would
remove the certainty needed by stakeholders. Removing each and every exception would not add
any value in the sense intended by the principle of subsidiarity, and may even have the opposite
effect or unintended side-effects37. In this context, one of the Italian respondents suggested using
the provisions of the existing regulation (EC 2007/834) as a starting point and establishing criteria
on a case-by-case basis38.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance (question 3)
According to the prevailing opinion of respondents, there is a need to harmonise the rules of
controls and response to non-compliance. Respondents mainly stressed fair competition and equal
treatment as arguments in favour of harmonisation. The minority of respondents that were against
such harmonisation and a common approach highlighted inter alia the increased red tape and costs
and the lack of added value of EU action.
The Commission proposal is also meant to preserve the integrity of organic production and ensure a level
playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach to controls and non-compliance
with the rules, e.g. in the case of non-authorised substance residues found in organic products.
Participants were asked whether they believed that harmonisation of controls and a common approach to
non-compliance with EU organic legislation was necessary in order to achieve: a) fair competition among
operators; and b) an effective functioning of the internal market.
34
The SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power".
The SEG member representing the Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania.
36
The SEG member appointed by REGLEG, the SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power",
Catalan Regional Assembly, Lombardy Regional Assembly.
37
The SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power"
38
Lombardy Regional Assembly.
35
…/…
- 10 39
Nine of the respondents believed that the proposed reinforcement of existing rules was needed to
achieve the aforementioned objectives, and put forward the following arguments with respect to the
necessity and added value of such harmonisation:
•
Enforcement of the existing rules would lead to equal treatment inside the EU and prevent
discrimination40. Several respondents shared this view: harmonising controls and establishing a
common procedure to deal with infringements would help to avoid unjustifiable differences in the
application of the organic production control system. It would promote fair competition between
41
operators and minimise unequal treatment of non-compliance in the Member States .
Harmonised controls and risk-based controls would contribute to a level playing field, and the
possibility of group certifications would also remove obstacles to entry into the organic market
for small and medium-sized enterprises42.
•
A respondent from Spain stressed that the organic production sector was already subject to a
demanding and sophisticated set of specific controls entailing significant additional costs that
affect the price of products and the viability of organic operators. Therefore, there should not be
an increase in the overall level of controls, but a harmonisation of the control procedures applied
to ensure compliance, distributing them more fairly among operators on the basis of the risks that
43
each of them faced . The same respondent also pointed out that many of the problems of organic
integrity in recent years were related in particular to imported organic products and, to a lesser
extent, to joint processing facilities.
•
Harmonisation was necessary since differing approaches by certification bodies led to unfair
differences in producer competitiveness and resulted in lack of consumer confidence and
consumer protection44.
•
One Spanish respondent45 felt that it was necessary to harmonise measures taken when
unauthorised products or substances were identified, since they could give rise to situations in
which farmers were unable to market their products as organic, owing to the unintended presence
of unauthorised substances or products.
39
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency), Government of Åland, Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality Institute), Extremadura Regional
Assembly, Catalan Regional Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly, Region Västra Götaland, Basque Government and Lombardy
Regional Assembly.
40
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency)
41
Catalan Regional Assembly, Lombardy Regional Assembly, Government of Åland.
42
Region Västra Götaland
43
Catalan Regional Assembly
44
Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality Institute)
45
Extremadura Regional Assembly
…/…
- 11 •
One of the respondents from Italy believed that it was necessary to harmonise controls with
respect to fair competition, since at the moment interpretations differed from one Member State to
another. An alternative would thus be a genuinely harmonised system, combined with efficient
information sharing between the Member States and the European Commission regarding the
exceptions granted and the various interpretations of the rules. However, such harmonisation was
not necessary as far as the effective functioning of the internal market was concerned, since there
had been little impact so far with regard to documentation checks – only certificates and in some
cases inspection reports had been taken into account.
•
According to one respondent from Spain , the real problem was the co-existence of public and
private certification systems, and the lack of a flexible system for harmonisation by means of
technical instructions. Certain objectives of the draft regulation appeared to be designed to meet
the needs of private certification bodies (group certification, risk-based controls), while others
seemed to be a response to lack of consumer confidence, the origin of which may simply lie in
lack of information or misinformation.
46
47
Only four respondents48 did not believe that strengthening the existing rules was necessary and
highlighted the following aspects in this context:
•
The existing rules were adequate and sufficiently strict and all the monitoring bodies were
accredited49.
The regulation, supervision and control of organic production and markets could be carried out at
local and/or regional level, based on certain harmonised rules at EU level, which already existed.
There was thus no added value, in particular for consumer confidence, in the proposed
harmonisation50.
•
One of the experts51 felt that the proven two-tier control procedure with private control bodies
and monitoring authorities should be retained. Furthermore, the special standards for controls of
organic farming should be retained as part of the specific EU legislation, and not shifted to a
"horizontal control regulation" as the Commission proposed to do with its draft regulation on
official controls52. Instead, a stronger focus was needed on high-risk areas, appropriate penalties
and an improvement in cross-border communication.
46
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly
Basque Government
48
Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets), the SEG member appointed by REGLEG, the SEG member appointed by the
CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power", and the Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania.
49
Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets)
50
The SEG member appointed by REGLEG
51
The SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power"
52
COM(2013) 265
47
…/…
- 12 -
3.3
•
As was the case for the granting of exceptions, flexibility was needed in order to react to different
circumstances in different regions and Member States. Further regulation would not necessarily
achieve fair competition and the proper functioning of the internal market, but increase red tape
and costs. Furthermore, the question of harmonisation of controls depended primarily on the
amount and scope of EU legislation in the field, i.e. the more organic production, and particularly
the issue of residues, were regulated, the greater the need for controls and harmonisation53.
•
Any strengthening of the market supervision regulations, especially one that limits the powers of
Member States, should be based on the specific need and on evidence that the rules applied or
procedures implemented at EU level would be more efficient. Such analysis had not been
54
provided .
•
As already suggested with regard to the proposed removal of exceptions, the German expert
proposed a step-by-step review of the existing legislation instead of a wholesale revision of the
rules. In his opinion, cautiously updating the existing rules to address specific issues that required
action and where problems did exist would do more to promote organic farming than wholesale
revision of the rules55.
Proportionality (question 4)
The majority of respondents believed that the proposal goes further than necessary and that there
are other less restrictive ways of achieving the intended objectives. They underlined that the review
of the existing legislation was premature and too comprehensive. Those who indicated that the
proposal did not raise any proportionality concerns did not, for the most part, give a reason for
their reply. The importance of avoiding differing interpretations and 28 different systems
throughout the EU was cited.
The respondents were asked whether they believed that the actions proposed in the draft regulation (in
particular those examined in point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) were the appropriate way to achieve the
intended objectives.
Six respondents56 considered that the proposal did not raise any proportionality concerns and that the
proposed measures were well suited to achieving the aforementioned objectives. Only two57 of the six
gave a reason for their response, highlighting the following aspects:
53
The SEG member appointed by REGLEG
Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania
55
The SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power"
56
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency), Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets), Government of Åland, Extremadura
Regional Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly and Lombardy Regional Assembly.
57
Extremadura Regional Assembly and Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly
54
…/…
- 13 •
In order to guarantee the sound development of the single market, it would be more effective to
have a single system applicable to organic products across the EU, rather than 28 different
systems. This approach would allow for a stronger and more consistent trade policy to be adopted
vis-à-vis global trade partners, strengthening the EU's negotiating position58.
•
The Italian respondent cited the importance of avoiding differences in interpretation between
Member States, but also stressed the increased workload for the Commission and the Member
States59.
Seven respondents60 felt that the proposed measures went further than necessary, for the reasons set out
below, and some of them proposed alternative, less restrictive ways of achieving the intended objectives:
•
An excessively far-reaching update of the rules would throw into question the added value of EU
action in terms of subsidiarity and proportionality. A well thought out and targeted update and
improvement would serve organic farming better than a wholesale revision61.
•
In the same vein, the proposed legislation was considered premature by the respondent from
Sweden. The current legislative framework was considered sufficient for the time being and
preferable to the proposed legislation62.
•
The expert appointed by REGLEG felt that the general yet key question of whether the
proportionality principle had been complied went beyond the choice of legal instrument, and had
to be scrutinised in the light of the content of the draft legislation. Was the content of the latter
proportionate, and was it justified to remove decision-making power from subnational authorities
in the multilevel structure of implementation of EU law? In the case of the draft regulation on
organic production, the proposal went further than necessary, since the existing legislation, if
properly implemented in all Member States, guaranteed fair competition without increasing red
tape. Information, training, consultation, and research would be more effective than the proposal,
so as to avoid hindering the progressive development of the sector63.
•
One of the respondents from Spain64 felt that the Commission should make more of an effort to
explain how certain rules were to be applied and monitored, which was partly the reason why
there were different interpretations by operators, the competent authorities, and monitoring
58
Extremadura Regional Assembly
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly
60
The SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power", the SEG member appointed by REGLEG,
Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania, Canary Islands Government (Agri-food Quality Institute), Catalan Regional Assembly, Region
Västra Götaland and Basque Government.
61
The SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power"
62
Region Västra Götaland
63
The SEG member appointed by REGLEG
64
Catalan Regional Assembly
59
…/…
- 14 authorities and bodies. The respondent suggested that a question and answer section be set up (on
the Commission website for organic production, for instance), where the Commission services
could publish responses, enabling a common body of "case law" to be developed and thereby
harmonising the interpretation of points that may arise at any given moment.
•
Another Spanish respondent65 voiced the concern that the sector would be marginalised and
proposed two alternatives to the proposed regulation: 1) a scaled-down proposal that removed a
few exceptions and clarified certain unresolved issues; 2) the developing of a system of
parallelism between the Member States, with a single obligatory EU logo or identifying mark,
together with some minimum regulatory requirements, but with the possibility of adapting the
rules at national level for matters where a single regulation for the EU as a whole was not
feasible.
•
Linking this issue to the questions surrounding subsidiarity, another Spanish respondent66
maintained that the removal of exceptions should be preceded by steps to resolve the problems
behind the exceptions. Furthermore, the harmonisation of responses to cases of lack of
compliance should go hand in hand with a study to ascertain what these were; it would thus be
necessary to clearly specify the obligations.
Some replies to this question expressed more general concerns and/or subsidiarity-related concerns, and
did not necessarily suggest any alternative, less restrictive ways of achieving the intended objectives. For
instance, one of the respondents67 argued that the introduction of a common approach should be better
reasoned, both in terms of the actual need and in terms of subsidiarity. In this respondent's view, without a
stronger justification, the introduction of such a common approach could scarcely be seen as compliant
with the principle of subsidiarity.
3.4
Delegated and implementing acts (question 5)
A large majority of the respondents saw the numerous delegations provided for in the draft
regulation as a cause for concern. They labelled the delegations excessive and insufficiently specific,
and argued that they concerned essential elements of the legislation. It was also felt that the
delegations could give rise to subsidiarity-related concerns, since the delegated acts would not be
subject to subsidiarity checks by national and regional parliaments. Furthermore, legal certainty
could not necessarily be guaranteed under such circumstances.
65
66
67
Basque Government
Canary Islands Government (Agri-Food Quality Institute)
Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania
…/…
- 15 -
A large number of the provisions in the draft regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290 and
291 TFEU, in most regulatory areas. The respondents were asked whether they believed that the extensive
delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided for in the proposal were a cause for
concern.
A large majority of the respondents replied to this question in the affirmative. Only three68 did not see this
as a potential problem (two of whom did not give a reason for their reply).
•
The Spanish respondent69 felt that many of the implementing provisions for the legislation on
organic production required a more agile response than the European Parliament and the Council
were able to provide.
In contrast, ten respondents70 believed that the power given to the Commission to adopt delegated and
implementing acts was a cause for concern for the following reasons:
•
The possibility for the Commission to adopt delegated and implementing acts should be more
limited and more specific, both in terms of scope and timing. The number of delegated acts
provided for was excessive and should be reduced to an absolute minimum71.
• A respondent from Spain72 was also of the opinion that the powers given to the Commission
should be restricted, in particular as regards the power to adopt acts that supplement or amend the
provisions laid down in the regulation, which constituted the most worrying aspect of the
delegations provided. The reply enumerates certain areas where the delegation to amend the
regulation could be excessive73.
• The large number of empowerment clauses was seriously problematic, since it would enable
important rules to be introduced in the sector without consulting the affected parties. This raised
subsidiarity-related concerns; if key rules were not laid down in the basic legal act it would be
impossible for national parliaments and regional parliaments with legislative powers to properly
carry out subsidiarity checks, since delegated and implementing acts were not subject to such
checks. In addition, in individual cases it may be advisable for gaps in EU legislation to be
68
SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency), Canary Islands Government (Agri-Food Quality Institute) and Extremadura Regional Assembly.
Canary Islands Government (Agri-Food Quality Institute)
Azores Government (Institute for Food and Agricultural Markets), Government of Åland, the SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional
group "Regions with Legislative Power", the SEG member appointed by REGLEG, Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania, Catalan
Regional Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Regional Assembly, Region Västra Götaland, Basque Government and Lombardy Regional Assembly.
71
Government of Åland
72
Basque Government
73
Conversion to organic agriculture (Article 8.6), livestock production (Article 11.2), production rules for processed food and feed (Article 13.2),
production rules for wine (Article 14.2), production rules for other products (Article 16), collection, packaging, transport and storage (Article 18),
etc.
69
70
…/…
- 16 plugged with arrangements at national, regional and even local level, rather than with specific acts
adopted by the European Commission74.
• Similar concerns were expressed by one of the Spanish respondents75 who believed that the
delegations gave too much discretion over sensitive matters to the Commission's technical
services in a way that did not allow the direct participation of the Member States, which were
responsible for applying the control system. Furthermore, the competent authorities at regional
level, which were familiar with the practical problems involved in applying the rules, remained on
the margins of the Commission's work, since the latter only had contact with the Member States'
central authorities, which sometimes had no real power over the application of these controls.
• The expert appointed by REGLEG was of the opinion that nearly all of the fields where the
Commission suggested further regulation by delegated and implementing acts had to be qualified
as "essential parts" of the draft regulation itself76. Consequently, the proposal was in breach of the
Treaty provisions, in particular Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, and could weaken legal certainty77.
• One Italian respondent78 shared this view, arguing that the delegated acts would need to include
components that were crucial to the sector in a way that was not really consistent with the nature
of delegated acts. The proposal would thus not be the sole legislative reference for operators,
thereby failing to guarantee legal certainty.
• Another respondent from Italy79 highlighted the specificity of organic farming, whose practices
were far more diverse in various European regions than traditional farming. Therefore, if the
Commission were given extensive implementing powers, there was a risk that problems might be
assessed too narrowly, which would undermine the values of organic farming, such as its capacity
for sustainability in a range of environments. In this respondent's opinion, a small group of
experts could not represent the entire European organic sector.
• The respondent from Sweden shared this view, also stressing that the power of the Commission to
adopt delegated and implementing acts, combined with the removal of the possibility for Member
States to grant exceptions, could constitute a severe obstacle for organic producers. Furthermore,
delegated and implementing acts could entail rapid changes in the conditions for organic
producers, which could lead to discouragement and a fall in organic production in the EU80.
74
The SEG member appointed by the CoR interregional group "Regions with Legislative Power", Lombardy Regional Assembly
Catalan Regional Assembly
E.g. conditions of production, controls and limits on the presence of non-authorised substance residues.
77
The SEG member appointed by REGLEG
78
Lombardy Regional Assembly
79
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly
80
Region Västra Götaland
75
76
…/…
- 17 3.5
Additional remarks
Respondents were finally asked to provide some concluding remarks, indicating any other subsidiarity or
proportionality concerns that the draft regulation gave rise to in their view. Six respondents81 did so,
highlighting the following aspects:
• The respondent from Finland argued that the unspecific character of the proposal made it
impossible to assess either the efficacy of the measures in achieving the desired goals, or the
effects and the resulting financial or administrative burden for the Member States82.
• One of the Spanish respondents83 took the view that the proposal did not meet the stated
objectives and should be withdrawn or extensively amended. The reason was that the proposal
applied different rules to different activities, although the principles underpinning them were the
same and unique to the entire production system. Therefore, the rules should also be equivalent
and homogenous, regardless of the type of activity undertaken by the operators, as they all
reflected the same principles. By way of example, if parallel production were not allowed, neither
should parallel processing be allowed nor parallel marketing of bulk products. A two-tier system,
which would continue to promote growth of the market for, and international trade in, organic
products, but which did not abandon development of more organic production based on the local
market, was proposed as an alternative model: 1) basic certification, based on the market and with
flexible rules. The production rules should be geared towards a common international standard
and facilitate the establishment of international trade agreements and equality of opportunity
among operators from various areas; 2) enhanced certification, based on the principles and the
laying down of combined rules for certified local organic production and marketing. The
competent authorities would be responsible for regulating this second level and EU legislation
should be limited to recognising this option and encouraging its use and promotion.
• Another Spanish respondent84 suggested that a thorough review should be conducted as to
whether the removal of exceptions was in keeping with the principle of proportionality.
As in the case of parallel production, possible alternatives should be taken into consideration that
would pose less of a threat to the development of organic agriculture in certain regions, insofar as it
was possible to establish official control, separation and traceability measures. A degree of leeway
should be granted to national authorities to apply conditional exceptions. Moreover, as regards the
references to fraud, it should be made clear whether the failure lies with the system of internal controls
of EU producers or the border checks conducted by central authorities, in order to objectively establish
the extent to which the proposed regulation was justified by the need to tackle fraud.
81
Government of Åland, the SEG member appointed by REGLEG, Catalan Regional Assembly, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly,
Region Västra Götaland and Basque Government.
82
Government of Åland
83
Catalan Regional Assembly
84
Basque Government
…/…
- 18 -
• One Italian respondent85 argued that the organic sector needed quick and harmonised responses in
order to guarantee credibility and fair play, and that the removal of exceptions was a good way to
ensure this. However, local authorities had a far deeper and more detailed understanding of
circumstances and needs and were in a better position to assess requests for derogations or
exceptions, whilst at the same time making local organic farming more sustainable. Therefore,
steps should be taken to ensure continuous and efficient communication between the Commission
and the regional and national authorities.
• The respondent from Sweden stressed that there was a serious risk that organic production as well
as market availability of organic products would decrease substantially if the proposed regulation
were implemented. The proposed regulation was considered unnecessary and should be
withdrawn or alternatively amended in its entirety in order to create favourable and stable
conditions for organic producers86.
• The expert appointed by REGLEG wrote that the current proposal raised some fundamental
questions with regard to the development of subsidiarity checks. Using the traditional method,
which focused on necessity and added value, arguments in favour of the proposal could easily be
found (fair competition, potential to improve consumer confidence, clearer legal framework,
abolition of trade obstacles, etc.). Moreover, a formal proportionality check limited to the choice
of legal instrument would conclude that the principle of proportionality had been complied with,
since the proposal concerned an update to an existing regulation. Furthermore, with regard to
compliance with the proportionality principle of the content of the legislation, the European Court
of Justice had concluded that the EU legislator had extensive discretionary powers and could
decide to a large extent if certain details should be regulated at EU level or left to national or
regional/local authorities. Nevertheless, certain subsidiarity and proportionality concerns arose in
this context. Firstly, was the proposal to revise the existing legislation really necessary in order to
achieve mostly new objectives in light of the state of implementation of the existing regulation?
This preliminary and basic question was often ignored by the Commission, which rarely
mentioned the state of implementation of existing legislation throughout the Member States. In
this connection, the expert called for an in-depth subsidiarity and proportionality assessment, with
each area of new regulation (e.g. removal of exceptions, limits for residues, etc.) assessed against
the criteria of necessity and added value separately, and with respect to each of the objectives.
The draft regulation would not withstand such scrutiny; the new elements were better regulated at
national and/or regional level, and removing the necessary flexibility of action at national and/or
regional level would hamper the development of the organic sector. In addition, it was possible
that failure to introduce these elements would not distort competition and the functioning of the
internal market, but failure to properly implement the current legislation almost certainly would.
85
86
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly
Region Västra Götaland
…/…
- 19 In conclusion, the new elements of the proposal were not in compliance with the principle of
subsidiarity, and the new measures taken at EU level were not proportionate to the efforts needed
to achieve harmonisation and to the impact of removing national/regional discretion and
flexibility87.
4. Other input
4.1
National parliaments
The eight-week Early Warning System period ran from 25 March to 20 May 201488. Only two national
parliaments or chambers issued reasoned opinions with regard to the proposal: the Austrian Federal
Council (Bundesrat) and the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies.
The reasoned opinion of the Austrian Federal Council (Bundesrat) stresses that a degree of national
leeway should be allowed for organic production to continue under certain circumstances (climate
conditions, catastrophic events, limited supply), in order to maintain some flexibility. The removal of
exceptions was therefore an excessive measure. The same could be said about the rules regarding the
presence of unauthorised products or substances, which would entail increased red tape. A transitional
period for existing organic farms was necessary and should be included in regulation. Furthermore, it
should be possible to allow the temporary use of non-organic ingredients if certain organic ingredients
were temporarily unavailable. As regards delegated acts, the Bundesrat was of the opinion that the
proposed regulation included too many empowerment clauses, which rendered the proposal highly
unspecific and impossible to assess in qualitative and quantitative terms. This constituted a breach of
Article 5 of Protocol No. 2. The Bundesrat drew a link between the lack of sufficient information on a)
the effectiveness of the measures proposed; and b) the assessment of the effects of the proposal, including
the financial and administrative burden for the Member States, and subsidiarity. It therefore took the view
that this constituted a "formal violation of the subsidiarity principle, particularly in the context of
delegated acts". It further maintained that the number of delegated acts provided for was excessive and
should be reduced to a strict minimum for the proposal to be compliant with the subsidiarity and
proportionality principles.
The Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies considered that the proposal would raise new barriers and
introduce administrative burdens and costs (in particular with regard to controls and certification), which
would result in a fall in organic production in the EU. This would benefit producers in non-EU countries
who could not be effectively monitored using the same standards. Consumer confidence would thus not
be improved. The Chamber would have preferred a limited and incremental reform instead of the
proposed complete update of the current legal framework.
87
88
The SEG member appointed by REGLEG
COM/2014/0180 - Document details page
…/…
- 20 The removal of exceptions was not considered an appropriate measure – the Member States should retain
the possibility to grant exceptions. Furthermore, transitional rules should be provided in order to take
account of different sociocultural, economic, climatic and environmental conditions. Moreover, the
proposal was not considered precise enough on account of the extensive scope for delegated acts. The
latter was believed to be excessive and to give too much conceptual freedom to the Commission, since in
some cases they concerned essential elements (e.g. risk evaluation, frequency and control methods). The
Chamber concluded that the proposed regulation included a number of provisions that did not comply
with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The power of the Commission to adopt essential
elements of the legislation by delegated acts was held to be breach of Article 290 TFEU and the principle
of subsidiarity.
4.2
Regional parliaments
Two regional parliaments have submitted a contribution on REGPEX, the Lombardy Regional
Assembly and Friuli-Venezia Giulia Assembly89.
The contribution of the Lombardy Regional Assembly largely welcomed the draft regulation and stated
that it was in compliance with the principle of proportionality as the proposal did not seem to go beyond
the objectives set by the European Commission. The decision to bring the entire set of rules on organic
products within a single text was considered an undoubtedly positive move, and it was believed that the
objectives of improving the quality of organic production in the EU, addressing various bottlenecks in the
supply chain and raising quality standards for organic food, would help meet consumers' expectations in
this field. The Assembly firmly welcomed the fact the proposed regulation reduced the number of
exceptions and derogations, thus enabling a more level competitive playing field and increasing consumer
confidence in organic food, whilst recognising that the number of organic producers could decline as a
result. It would therefore be advisable for the proposed regulation to set out in full the criteria and
conditions under which the Member States would nonetheless be able to grant such exceptions or
derogations, without limiting them to catastrophic circumstances.
However, the contribution highlighted certain problem areas in the proposed legislation, which could
raise concerns with regard to subsidiarity. Firstly, the excessive reliance on delegated and implementing
acts, which risked rendering the regulation meaningless by delegating to the Commission alone the task of
specifying rules for the sector without indicating the procedure under which such delegated acts were to
be adopted. This could run counter to the subsidiarity principle. Secondly, with regard to definitions, the
Assembly was of the opinion that it ought to be up to each Member State to set the size limit for
agricultural areas, as the definition in the draft regulation did not seem to take account of specific national
and regional features. The same approach should be taken to certification, thus ensuring compliance with
the subsidiarity principle.
89
CoR - Document details
…/…
- 21 -
The Friuli-Venezia Giulia Assembly took the view that the proposal upheld the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality, in that the objectives, which included guaranteeing fair competition and a wellfunctioning internal market in organic products, and maintaining consumer confidence, could not be
adequately achieved by the Member States themselves but would be better achieved at EU level. In terms
of the proportionality principle, the proposed regulation did not go beyond what was necessary in order to
achieve these objectives. However, with regard to the substance, the Assembly pointed out that efforts to
harmonise rules should not come at the cost of the special features of organic production in the region.
Moreover, it considered that the use of delegated acts was excessive, which would weaken the system and
in some areas make it incomplete and inadequate. These acts should be carefully reviewed by the Member
States. The real risk of using delegated acts was that the outcome may be at odds with policy guidelines.
4.3
Council policy debate on organic farming
At a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council held on 14 July 2014, the Member States held a
policy debate on the draft regulation on organic farming90. According to the press release from the
meeting, most of the Member States welcomed the Commission's intention to simplify the rules on
organic production and strengthen consumer confidence in organic products. As regards the proposed
strengthening and harmonising of production rules by removing the current exceptions, a number of
delegates expressed concern about such a drastic change to the current legislation on organic farming,
considering that it could pose a risk to the growth of the organic sector. Several delegations were in
favour of undertaking a review of the current exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Many Member States
were not in favour of including the control system for organic production in the Regulation on official
controls in food and feed, considering that it was not the same type of control. Finally, in terms of
delegated acts, a number of delegations expressed opposition to such extensive use of delegated acts and
were of the opinion that production rules should be contained in the basic act and modified by codecision.
90
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/143934.pdf
…/…
- 22 -
5. Conclusions
In light of this information, it can be concluded that some elements of the draft regulation appear to be
problematic from a subsidiarity and proportionality viewpoint. Indeed, the subsidiarity principle stipulates
that the EU should act only if its action is deemed necessary and provides a clear benefit. In this case,
there are plausible arguments supporting the fact that some of the proposed measures do not fulfil these
two cumulative conditions and could, consequently, be regarded as non-compliant with the subsidiarity
principle. The same can be said about a non-compliance with the proportionality principle. The means
proposed by the EU must be suitable and appropriate to achieve the intended objectives, but with this
legislative proposal, there are reasonable arguments suggesting that this is not the case.
The prevailing opinion was that removing the possibility for the Member States to grant exceptions was
not needed to achieve the intended objectives.
Most respondents felt that a degree of flexibility and leeway for national and regional authorities should
be maintained in order to respond to specific circumstances, such as climatic conditions, catastrophic
events, and a shortage of organic feed and seed, which could apply only to some regions. Some also felt
that the existing rules allowing for regional specificities to be taken into account were sufficient, and there
were fears that the complete removal of exceptions could increase red tape and have a negative impact on
the development of organic production, which would be contrary to the Commission's objectives. It was
felt that national and/or regional legislation was better placed to take into account the different conditions
of organic farming throughout the EU, and that the current possibility to grant exceptions served as a
means to level out such differences.
In contrast, most respondents felt that harmonising controls and responding to non-compliance was
necessary and would add value. They were of the opinion that different approaches by certification bodies
led to unfair differences in producer competitiveness and that stricter rules and/or a common approach
were needed to obtain a level playing field for operators. However, some respondents were against
harmonising controls, arguing that the existing rules were sufficient and worked well. Moreover, certain
respondents doubted that the proposed regulation would achieve fair competition and the proper
functioning of the internal market, and believed that the targeted further development of rules would be
preferable to a complete overhaul, since the latter could lead to more red tape and higher costs. Despite
these divergent views, it can be concluded that there is generally less reluctance to reinforce the existing
rules with regard to controls and response to non-compliance, than to harmonise the legal framework by
removing the possibility to grant exceptions.
While some of the participants felt that the principle of proportionality had been respected, especially
considering that the proposal updated an existing regulation, thereby limiting discretion with regard to the
choice of legal instrument, others raised concerns. These arguments were closely linked to the
subsidiarity-related arguments and could not easily be dissociated from the latter, e.g. that some elements
…/…
- 23 of the proposal should be better justified and that the removal of exceptions should be preceded by actions
to solve the problems behind the exception. Furthermore, the proposed legislation was considered
premature – a review of the rules was not required at this stage – and not seen as providing any added
value, since the existing legal framework was satisfactory. The new elements of the proposal were not
considered proportionate to the action required.
The proportionality concerns that were raised were thus very much linked to the content and the substance
of the proposed regulation, and much less to the form.
The vast majority of respondents took the view that the delegated and implementing powers of the
Commission were a cause for concern. It was generally felt that the number of delegations was excessive
and should be reduced. The clauses should furthermore be more specific, both in terms of scope and
timeframe. The fact that national and regional parliaments would not be able to undertake any subsidiarity
monitoring of delegated and implementing acts was also considered problematic, and there was concern
that the local and regional authorities responsible for applying the legislation would be completely
excluded from preparing and implementing this legislation.
Some respondents felt that certain delegations concerned essential elements of the basic legal act, which
would constitute a breach of Article 290 TFEU. The powers conferred upon the Commission in
combination with the removal of exceptions could also constitute a severe obstacle for producers,
ultimately discouraging them and causing organic production in the EU to fall.
Thus, the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions was generally considered an essential feature
of the organic farming legislation, and the Commission has not convinced the respondents that removing
that possibility is necessary to achieve its objectives or add value. Harmonisation of controls and a
common approach to the non-compliance with EU organic legislation met with less opposition, and were
in the main viewed as necessary to avoid distortion of competition and unequal treatment of operators
throughout the EU.
However, the area in which respondents were most clearly unanimous in their opposition was the
extensive use of delegation of powers to the Commission. It was generally felt that such delegations
created a genuine problem, not least with regard to subsidiarity. The draft regulation was seen as not
specific enough to be properly assessed in terms of subsidiarity and proportionality on account of the
numerous delegations. In this context, it is interesting to note that the CoR opinion on the closely linked
proposal for a regulation on official controls91 raises similar concerns with regard to delegated acts. The
opinion opposes the fact that the "proposal gives the Commission the power to adopt delegated acts in
practically all regulatory areas" and considers it "imperative that any rules with significant repercussions
for countries' supervisory activities and budgets be explicitly included in the regulation"92.
91
92
COM(2013) 265
CdR 5295/2013
…/…
- 24 -
Appendix I
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS – DIRECTORATE E – Horizontal Policies and Networks
Questionnaire
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL ON ORGANIC PRODUCTION AND LABELLING OF ORGANIC PRODUCTS
COM (2014) 180
Consultation of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network (SMN) and the Subsidiarity Expert Group
(SEG)
BACKGROUND
On 24 March 2014, the European Commission published a proposal for a new Regulation on organic
production and the labelling of organic products. The proposal aims at reviewing the current legal
framework (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007) in order to address shortcomings of the existing system. Since
the EU organic market has quadrupled in size over the last ten years, the Commission believes that the
rules in force need to be updated and adjusted so that the sector can further develop and respond to future
challenges. The proposal focuses on three main objectives: maintaining consumer confidence,
maintaining producer confidence and making it easier for farmers to convert to organic farming. The aim
is for organic farming to remain close to its principles and objectives so that public demands in terms of
environment and quality are met.
Specifically, the Commission proposes:
• to strengthen and harmonise rules, both in the EU and for imported products, by removing many
of the current exceptions in terms of production and controls;
• to reinforce controls by making them risk-based;
• to make it easier for small farmers to join organic farming by introducing the possibility for them
to sign up to a group certification system;
• to better address the international dimension of trade in organic products with the addition of new
provisions on exports; and
• to simplify the legislation to reduce administrative costs for farmers and improve transparency.
…/…
- 25 The review of the political and legal framework for organic production is on the CoR Subsidiarity Work
Programme 2014; this is why you have been asked to contribute to the subsidiarity analysis on relevant
aspects of the Commission proposal. The outcome of the consultation will be forwarded to Hester Maij
(NL/PPE), rapporteur of the CoR opinion, which is currently being drafted and scheduled to be adopted at
the December 2014 Plenary Session. The consultation report will also be sent to the European
Commission.
Please complete and submit by 26 May 2014. You may upload the completed questionnaire directly onto
the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network website (http://subsidiarity.cor.europa.eu – remember to log in).
Alternatively, you can send it by email to [email protected].
Name of Authority:
Contact person:
Contact details (phone, email)
Please answer the following questions:
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes
/ No
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes
/ No
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
…/…
- 26 ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes
/ No
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes
/ No
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes
/ No
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes
/ No
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes
/ No
…/…
- 27 -
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes
/ No
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes
/ No
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes
/ No
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
…/…
- 28 -
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
(max 350 words)
____________________________
Privacy Statement: The follow-up to your contribution requires that your personal data (name, contact details, etc.)
be processed in a file. All the answers to the questions are voluntary. Your replies will be kept for a period of 5
years after the reception of the questionnaire. Should you require further information or wish to exercise your rights
under Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001 (e.g. to access, rectify, or delete your data), please contact the data controller
(Head of Unit E2) at [email protected]. If necessary, you may also contact the CoR Data Protection
Officer ([email protected]). You have the right of recourse to the European Data Protection
Supervisor at any time (www.edps.europa.eu).
Please note that the questionnaire with your contribution and your contact details will be published online. Your
questionnaire may be transmitted to CoR rapporteurs and other EU institutions for information purposes. If you
do not wish your questionnaire to be made available for this purpose, please notify us accordingly.
…/…
- 29 -
Appendix II: List of respondents
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CONSULTATION
ORGANIC FARMING (COM(2014) 180 final)
#
1.
2.
3.
Name
SOFENA (Sofia Energy
Agency)
Azores Government IAMA (Institute for Food
and Agricultural Market)
Government of Åland
4.
Gregor Raible – Head of
the Bavarian State
Parliament Office in
Brussels (SEG Member)
5.
Johannes Maier – Head of
Unit "Internal EU-Affairs",
Carinthia State (SEG
Member)
Arūnas Gražulis – Adviser
on EU Issues, Association
of Local Authorities in
Lithuania
(SEG Member)
Canary Islands Government
(Canary Islands Agri-food
Quality Institute)
Extremadura Regional
Assembly
Catalan Regional Assembly
6.
7.
8.
9.
93
Category
Subsidiarity Administrative
Expert
level
Group
(SEG) /
Subsidiarity
Monitoring
Network
(SMN)
Member
State
Other
stakeholder
Regional
Government
N/A93
Local
Bulgaria
SMN
Regional
Portugal
Regional
Government
Assocation of
Regional
Authorities
SMN
Regional
Finland
SEG
(CoR
Interregional
Group
"Regions with
Legislative
Powers")
SEG
(REGLEG)
Regional
Germany
Regional
Austria
Association of
Local
Authorities
SEG
Local
Lithuania
Regional
Government
SMN
Regional
Spain
Regional
Parliament
Regional
Parliament
SMN
Regional
Spain
SMN
Regional
Spain
Association of
Regional
Authorities
Sofia City is a SMN Partner
…/…
- 30 10.
11.
12.
13.
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Regional Assembly
Region Västra Götaland
Basque Government
(Directorate for Quality and
Agri-Food Industries)
Lombardy Regional
Assembly
Regional
Parliament
Regional
Authority
Regional
Government
SMN
Regional
Italy
SMN
Regional
Sweden
SMN
Regional
Spain
Regional
Parliament
SMN
Regional
Italy
…/…
- 31 -
Appendix III: Contributions
1. SOFENA (Sofia Energy Agency)
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes
/ No
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes
/ No
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes
/ No
…/…
- 32 -
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes
/ No
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes
/ No
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes
/ No
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
Clear competition rules for all producers and trade of organic production.
Higher consumer confidence. Improvement in the health status of the population.
Easier solving of legal disputes thanks to the clear approach and exact text in the legislation.
Abolishing of the exceptions that usually are used by a considerable number of producers not to
follow the rules.
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
…/…
- 33 -
Yes
/ No
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes
/ No
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
The proposed reinforcement of the existing rules will lead to equal treatment inside the EU and will
abolish discrimination between produces from different EU countries.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes
/ No
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
…/…
- 34 DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes
/ No
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
(max 350 words)
…/…
- 35 -
2. Azores Government - IAMA (Institute for Food and Agricultural Market)
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1.
Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes x
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
No
x
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
Receives notification of the activities of producers and operators in the Autonomous Region of the
Azores
…/…
- 36 SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a
Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i fair competition among operators
Yes x
ii improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes x
iii a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes x
iv a trade free from obstacles?
Yes
2b.
If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
Clarification and simplification of production rules.
2c.
If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
…/…
- 37 Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3.
Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
No
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
No
3b.
If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
the proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
3c.
If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing
rules is not necessary in this context.
The existing rules are strict or adequate; all the monitoring bodies are accredited
PROPORTIONALITY
4a.
Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined
in point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes
4b.
If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion,
would be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant,
please provide a brief answer.
…/…
- 38 -
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5.
Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission
provided in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
(max 350 words)
…/…
- 39 -
3. Government of Åland
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes X / No
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes X / No
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
Our regional authority is involved in all implementation of EU organic legislation and has power to
grant exceptions if so needed. Our local authority is responsible for the enforcement of the EU
organic legislation and it organizes surveillance and controls. Our authority takes care of followingup and reporting of the controls, too.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes
/ No X
…/…
- 40 -
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes
/ No X
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes
/ No X
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes
/ NoX
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
A removal of the possibility to grant some exceptions to the rules is not necessary to achieve the
above objectives because the exceptions are not used perfunctory and a certain national leeway
should be allowed for organic production to continue under certain circumstances. Such
circumstances include climatic conditions, catastrophic events and limitations due to geographic or
structural conditions that may cause sudden bottlenecks in the supply of organic inputs (e.g. seed and
feed). The reasons for such bottlenecks may only apply to certain regions in a Member State and are
mostly unpredictable, national or regional rules would be preferable to rules applying to the EU as a
whole in order to maintain a certain level of flexibility.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
…/…
- 41 3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes X / No
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes X / No
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
A common approach in relation to controls and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of
presence of non-authorised substance residues in organic products is to prefer and if it seems difficult
to reach it by BTFS-trainings there might be a need to get a common approach by an improvement of
the legislation.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes X / No
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
…/…
- 42 DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes X / No
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
The possibility for Commission to adopt delegated and/or implemented acts should be more limited
and more specific, both in the question of the scope and the time perspective. The number of delegated
legal acts provided for in this proposal is excessive and has also to be reduced to its absolute
minimum.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
Due to the unspecific character of the proposal, the proposal does not allow neither an assessment of
the effectiveness of the measures proposed to reach the desired goal nor an assessment of the effects
of the proposal and the resulting financial or administrative burden for the Member States.
…/…
- 43 -
4. Gregor Raible – Head of the Bavarian State Parliament Office in Brussels
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes ⌧/ No ☐
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes ⌧ / No ☐
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
A single answer cannot be given for all regions with legislative powers. It can generally be said that
these regions are very closely involved in the application and enforcement of EU legislation on
organic products. A number of regions have influence over the choice of private control and
certification authorities and have overall responsibility for a well-functioning control and certification
system. They are also responsible for orderly application of exceptions. In part, the conditions under
which exceptions may be granted are defined differently for different regions.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
…/…
- 44 i) fair competition among operators?
Yes ☐ / No ☐
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes ☐ / No ☐
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes ☐/ No ☐
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes ☐ / No ☐
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
The question requires a nuanced response.
The European Commission's intention to modernise the legal framework for organic farming to reflect
its increasing importance and the growing consumer demand and positive environmental effects, and
to strengthen consumer confidence in organic food products, is welcome.
However, this presupposes that the legal framework promotes the intended development of organic
farming, rather than hindering it. Regions – especially those with legislative powers – use the tools
available to them to support organic farming with due regard to the circumstances in their region.
Existing exceptions are not 'damaging' to organic farming in and of themselves, but can even be
helpful, since they often provide flexibility as well as scope to respond to regional circumstances, in
line with the principle of subsidiarity. If exceptions are to be removed, this should therefore happen in
a gradual, realistic and discriminate way.
This is not adequately in the Commission's proposal. Wholesale revision of the rules on organic
farming would be counterproductive and stand in the way of the intended development, not least
because it would remove the certainty needed by stakeholders (organic farmers, processing and retail
…/…
- 45 firms) to plan. This is especially true of the small and medium-sized organic businesses found in
many regions, and organic farming as a part-time activity.
For example: the proposal would remove the possibility of exemption for brick-and-mortar retailers of
organic products. This would mean that in future every single little specialist shop, even if they
carried only one organic product, would have to register and be certified. The costs and red tape tied
up with this are a significant burden, especially for small businesses in rural areas.
All in all, therefore, a nuanced view should be taken of exceptions. Removing each and every
exception would not serve organic farming, and may even have the opposite effect or have
unintended side-effects. In such cases action by the EU, here in the form of removing exceptions,
would have no added value as meant by the principle of subsidiarity.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes ☐/ No ☐
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes ☐ / No ☐
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
This question also requires a nuanced view.
…/…
- 46 In principle the same applies here: cautiously updating the existing rules to address specific issues that
require action and where problems do exist would do more to promote organic farming than
wholesale revision of the rules. However, generally speaking the Commission's approach gives cause
for concern that the rules will become overly bureaucratic.
The proven, two-tier control procedure with private control bodies and monitoring authorities should
generally be retained. At the same time, what are needed are a stronger focus on high-risk areas,
appropriate penalties and an improvement in cross-border communication.
The special standards for controls of organic farming should be retained as part of the specific EU
legislation, and not shifted to a "horizontal control Regulation" as the Commission proposes to do
with its "Regulation on official controls" (COM(2013) 265 of 6.5.2013).
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes ☐ / No ⌧
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
By and large, the existing focus and shape of the EU organic farming Regulation has proved
successful. Therefore, a well thought out and targeted update and improvement would serve organic
farming better than wholesale revision.
Unfortunately, in many areas the Commission's proposal does not reflect this principle – see the
comments above.
Whether one categorises these objections as related to subsidiarity or proportionality is ultimately
irrelevant, but we reiterate that an "excessive" revision of the rules would throw into question the
added value of EU action, not least with a view to subsidiarity. A number of existing exceptions and
provisions for flexibility reflect the need to promote organic farming in accordance with local
conditions, which is also related to subsidiarity.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
…/…
- 47 -
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes ⌧ / No ☐
The large number of proposed delegated acts is seriously problematic. It will enable important rules to
be introduced in the sector without involving the affected parties.
This, too, raises subsidiarity-related concerns: on the one hand, if key rules are not set out in ordinary
acts, it would be impossible for national and regional parliaments with legislative powers to properly
carry out the subsidiarity check that is their prerogative, since delegated and implemented acts are not
subject to subsidiarity checks by national and regional parliaments.
In addition, in individual cases it may be advisable for "gaps" in the EU regulation to be plugged with
arrangements at Member State, regional and even local level, rather than with special acts from the
European Commission.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
---
…/…
- 48 -
5. Johannes Maier – Head of Unit "Internal EU-Affairs", Carinthia State
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes X / No
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes X / No
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
Many (nearly all) of the RegLeg members are strongly involved in the implementation of
the EU-legislation on organic farming beside their general interest in the functioning of the
local and regional production of organic and the offer of bio food. Thus they are organising
associations of organic farmers, supporting them financially and with teaching and
expertise. Furthermore they are supervising and controlling the production both at the farms
and the food in stores by their own staff or by delegated institutions (it’s the case in Austria,
where the regional authorities functions as first level of jurisdiction). Many of the regional
authorities are empowered to determine in detail, how organic food are produced and sold
on markets. They are empowered to grant exceptions to farmers as well as to market
stakeholders.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
…/…
- 49 -
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes
/ No X
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes
/ No X
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes
/ No X
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes
/ No X
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
At a first glance further harmonisation at European level in general and for organic farming too will
secure better competition, improve consumer confidence, and guarantee a clearer legal framework
and a trade free of obstacles. That will not be always the fact:
Organic farming finds different conditions and situations throughout Europe. Products of organic
farming are mainly presented and sold in local and regional markets although an increasing rate of
products are part of great delivers throughout Europe. Nevertheless the regulation, supervising and
controlling both of the farming as well the markets can sufficiently be done at local/regional level
based on some main harmonised regulations at EU-level, which still exists. Thus the existing rules
are functioning – if completely implemented throughout Europe – and no added value particularly
for consumer confidence can be achieved. There must be maintained some space for discretion to
the regional authorities in order to take care of existing different conditions at regional level for the
production. There is not in any case any administrative simplification, if smaller producers and
manufactures are forced to apply a broad range of harmonised regulations when they are
distributing their products at a local or limited regional level. National/regional regulation are
better suited to take into account the different circumstances of organic farming and can find more
…/…
- 50 cost efficient solutions than a regulation “one fits for all” at European level. This cannot hamper or
raise any obstacles to the free trade or the competition among several operators, because they are
granted the similar access to the regional markets.
As the experience particularly in Austria proved the development of organic farming – a goal of the
current legal proposal – needs a “step-by-step” approach. Climate changes, disasters often taking
place in a limited area, production of small scale farming, limits of feedstock, etc. need flexibility
on the ground, which can be better provided by national/regional legislation than at European
level. Therefore the European legislator should abstain from further regulations in order to secure
the improvement of the organic farming sector.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes
/ No X
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes
/ No X
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
The question on the harmonisation of controls depends primarily on the degree and intensity of
harmonised legislation at the EU-level. The more organic farming and particularly the issue of
residues are regulated the more controls and their harmonisation are necessary!
This question has to be dealt with more in depth; non-compliance substances are a difficult issue,
…/…
- 51 because small farming is not fully independent of neighbouring farming based on traditional farming
methods. It is the same problem as observed by GMO production, which may have impacts to
traditional farming too. “Pollution” may take place without the influence and the control of the
organic farmer and therefore in small scale structured farmlands organic products may not be
completely free of substances which are used in traditional farming. There again flexibility is
necessary in order to react to different circumstances in different regions and states. Added regulation
may not improve fair competition; it would create more administration, more bureaucracy and costs
with less improving effects to fair competition and the functioning of the internal market.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes
/ No X
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
General and fundamental question if the proportionality principle goes beyond the answer on the right
legal instrument and has to be scrutinised regarding the content of the intended regulation: does the
content is proportional and justified to eliminate any discretion of sublevel authorities in the
multilevel structure of EU-law implementation similar to the decision between “regulation” and
“directive”, the later one, which maintains and gives back the decision to the national authorities how
to achieve the EU-objectives.
There is hardly any decision by the ECJ, how to deal with this general question. In general the ECJ
neglect any competence to scrutinize the “content” on its conformity with the proportionality
principle. It is totally up to the legislator, to decide during the legislation procedure on the content.
In the case of “organic farming” the proposal goes further than it would be necessary. The existing
rules at EU-level – if properly implemented in all MS – are appropriate to secure fair competition
without increasing administrative efforts. Actions of information, training, consultation and research
are more helpful in order not to counteract a step-by-step development of this farming sector. The new
organic Action programme and the subsidies within the CAP are welcomed.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
…/…
- 52 5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes X / No
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
Nearly all of the fields which the Commission suggests to be regulated further by delegated or
implementing acts have to be qualified as “essential parts” of the regulation itself like the conditions
of production, controls and limits of presence of non-authorised substance residues. The proposal
violates substantially the EU-Treaties particularly art. 291. It is the right and task of the EU legislator
to lay down detailed rules on these essential matters of an EU act and not that of the Commission.
This is also necessary in the light of legal certainty.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
The current proposal gives reason to further and fundamental considerations on an in-depth
development of the subsidiarity check:
A) The current/traditional method is limited to answer, whether the subject of proposed regulations
could be better regulated at European level in order to achieve the – also proposed but dedicated as
necessary – (political) objectives. The sector of organic farming is still regulated on the European
level based on art 42 and 43 TFEU. The current proposal intends to improve the existing regulation,
further harmonise existing law and respond to challenges in the matter. There is no doubt that
harmonised regulations at European level will better provide for a fair competition among market
operators, do have the potential to improve consumer confidence, provide a clearer – probably not an
uncomplicated – legal framework and may abolish market obstacles. Thus a scrutiny on subsidiarity
may be easily finished by arguing the competence for intensifying EU-regulation.
B) A formal check on the conformity with the principle of proportionality in this case will be very
short: There is still a law in the form of a regulation (Reg. (EC) No 834/2007), which means the
highest density of European law and nearly any discretion for national legislators implementing the
European acts in the matter concerned. In the case of any amendment or improvement of an existing
“regulation” it does not seem to be considerable to ask for another kind of EU-act.
C) Furthermore – following the current interpretation of the ECJ – arguments of proportionality
referring the content of the subject being regulated are up to the discretion of the “EU-legislator”, who
will decide if the details may be regulated at European level or maintained to the implementation by
…/…
- 53 the national/regional authorities. Thus many arguments raised above are deemed to be still matters of
the negotiations and decision procedure on the content of the proposed new regulation on organic
farming.
D) Nevertheless – and in future at an increasing level – the question arises, if new and improving rules
to existing regulations have to put into question towards subsidiarity and much more towards
proportionality. First of all it has to be considered, if really all new and added proposals are
(politically) necessary in order to gain – mostly new – objectives. This important and preliminary
question is mostly neglected by the Commission and indirectly overlapped by long list of reasons for
changed circumstances. Rarely the Commission mentions the state of implementation of the existing
regulations throughout the Member States, which proves great deficits for evidence.
E) It seems to be necessary to considerate an in-depth scrutiny of the principle of subsidiarity and
proportionality, which questions mainly the necessity of revising proposals of regulations. In the focus
are the new and added – or the cancelled in the case of exceptions – rules, which have to be
scrutinised in a separate approach. Are they really necessary? Would it be better to regulate them on
the European level e.g. the exceptions for the production on organic farming or would
national/regional laws contribute better to the improvement and development of organic production?
The “better-clause” has to be applied to each field of planned new rules starting at their grounding
objective and also in relation to all intended goals.
F) As raised above the abolishment of exceptions or the introduction of limits for residues throughout
Europe will hamper the development of the sector of organic farming itself by removing the necessary
flexibility of action at national/regional level. The “new elements” are still better ruled at
national/regional level. On the other side the competition or the internal market may not be affected
negatively if the new elements of regulation will not be introduced. (Sidestep: This will be much more
the case if still existing and harmonising rules will not be implemented properly). From this point of
view new added elements to an existing regulation are not in conformity with the principle of
subsidiarity. At least the new actions will never be proportional to the efforts necessary for the
harmonisation in relation to its impact on abolishment/reduction of discretion at national/regional
level.
(max 350 words)
…/…
- 54 -
6. Arūnas Gražulis – Adviser on EU Issues, Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes
/ No
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes
/ No
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes
/ No
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
…/…
- 55 Yes
/ No
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes
/ No
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes
/ No
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
The proposed regulation and the removal of Member States’ right to exception would in theory
provide more fair competition, by establishing single regulation for all Europe.
However, after this the second step would be necessary, namely in assuring that the external
operators and operators, from outside the EU, in order to qualify for the “organic” label
would be the subject of equal regulation.
As it regards the clear and uncomplicated framework, resulting from the proposed changes, so
far it looks a bit too early to make such conclusions, basing only on currently possessed data.
However, proposed introduction of single European-level regulation potentially looks clearer
and less likely to be subject to various national interpretations.
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
Proposed changes have little correlation with the increase or decrease in consumers’ confidence. So
far the consumers’ confidence in organic labelling was rather high and at least the different
approaches relating to the origin of the organic product were almost unheard of.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
…/…
- 56 -
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes
/ No
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes
/ No
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
Any strengthening of the market supervision regulations, especially the one, which limits the
competence of the Member States, shall be based on the particular need and a proof that the rules
made or procedures implemented on the European level would be more efficient.
In this case such analysis is not provided, therefore we do not see the proof that Member States
are abusing or interpreting for the benefit of their own producers current regulations on the noncompliance.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes
/ No
…/…
- 57 4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
The introduction of common approach needs to be better reasoned both in terms of the actual need
and in terms of subsidiarity. Without adequate reasoning, the introduction of such approach can
be seen as barely compliant with the principle of subsidiarity.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes
/ No
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
(max 350 words)
…/…
- 58 -
7. Canary Islands Government (Canary Islands Agri-food Quality Institute)
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes x
No ☐
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes x / No ☐
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
We are the authority responsible for checking and certifying organic production. The tasks have not
been delegated and are therefore conducted directly.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
…/…
- 59 -
Yes ☐ / No x
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes ☐ / No x
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes ☐ / No x
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes ☐ / No x
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
The exceptions which are currently granted (seeds, fodder, etc.) are allowed because the market
does not meet the real needs of professionalised production, as there are not enough producers of
inputs. In this context, excepting cereal or other products, most minority production fields would be
severely affected. Accordingly, before removing the exceptions it would be necessary to establish a
definite action plan for solving the present deficiencies in organic production; otherwise, the only
effect would be to drive out many producers and thus seriously reduce the market presence of
organic produce.
The elimination of mixed farms is excessive and would be likely to drastically reduce access to
livestock farming. In the case of mixed livestock farms involving different species of animal, there
is no problem. However, arable farms are a different matter: in addition to the arguments raised
regarding livestock farming, it would be necessary to address the difficulty of deciding what is
considered as a single holding, and then to address the justification for an operator to have to
…/…
- 60 dedicate the whole of his activity to organic production.
Moreover, many requirements are questionable in terms of product quality, and the existence of the
exception is not the underlying reason for the existence of the problem behind it.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes x / No ☐
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes x / No ☐
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
Differing action by certification bodies in response to non-compliance leads to: unfair differences in
producer competitiveness, as less strict requirements or a less punitive response will have a smaller
impact on production costs; a lack of consumer protection, as some products marketed as organic
may not meet the same quality standards as others; calling into question of the reputation of the
quality mark, as there will be doubts about the products placed on sale by virtue of the quality
controls.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
…/…
- 61 -
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes ☐ / No x
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
The removal of exceptions should be preceded by steps to solve the problems behind the exception.
Harmonisation of responses to cases of lack of compliance should go hand in hand with a study to
ascertain what these are; it will thus be necessary to clearly set out the obligations.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes ☐ / No x
Many of the implementing provisions for the legislation on organic production require a more agile
response than the Parliament and the Council are able to provide.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
(max 350 words)
…/…
- 62 -
8. Extremadura Regional Assembly
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes ☐ / No ☐X
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes ☐X/ No ☐
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes ☐X / No ☐
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
…/…
- 63 -
Yes ☐X / No ☐
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes ☐X / No ☐
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes ☐X / No ☐
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
Neither internal supply nor the legislative framework have been adapted to this market
expansion, since the rules of production do not take sufficient account of the development of
consumer and public expectations and concerns.
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
…/…
- 64 i) fair competition among operators
Yes ☐X / No ☐
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes ☐X / No ☐
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
It is essential to harmonise the measures to be adopted when unauthorised products or
substances are identified, since they can give rise to situations in which farmers are unable to
market their products as organic, owing to the unintentional presence of unauthorised
substances or products.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes ☐X / No ☐
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
In order to guarantee the sound development of the single market, it is more effective, within the
framework of the entire CAP, to provide for a single system applicable to the organic products of the
EU, rather than 28 different systems. This approach enables a sounder and more coherent trade policy
to be adopted vis-à-vis global trade partners, boosting the EU's negotiation capacity in particular.
…/…
- 65 -
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes ☐ / No ☐X
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
(max 350 words)
…/…
- 66 -
9. Catalan Regional Assembly
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes
/ No ☐
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes
/ No ☐
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
We are the competent authority for organic production in the autonomous community of
Catalonia (Spain).
We also have general competences concerning agriculture, livestock farming, fisheries, food
and the environment in the autonomous community of Catalonia (Spain).
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes ☐ / No
…/…
- 67 -
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes ☐ / No
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes ☐ / No
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes ☐ / No
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
In general, the exceptions available to the competent authorities of the Member States enable
operators to remain with the certification system and to respond to more specific situations in which a
certain flexibility is needed, always on a temporary and exceptional basis and in accordance with the
criteria and procedures established and monitored by the competent authorities.
In any case, and in order to prevent rules being applied in different ways by the various competent
authorities, these situations could be specified and harmonised to a greater extent by the Commission
and the Member States.
Another option is to assess these exceptional cases one-by-one in order to decide which continue to be
necessary and which could be eliminated and when.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
…/…
- 68 3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes
/ No ☐
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes
/ No ☐
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
Harmonising controls and establishing a common procedure to deal with infringements would be a
very good idea in order to avoid unjustifiable differences in the application of the organic production
control system.
It must not be forgotten that the organic production sector is already subject to a demanding and
advanced set of specific controls which entail a significant additional cost affecting the price of
products and the viability of organic operators. It is not therefore a question of increasing the overall
level of controls, but harmonising the control procedures applied to ensure compliance, distributing
them more fairly among operators on the basis of the risks each of them face.
Neither should it be forgotten that many of the problems of organic integrity of recent years are
related in particular to imported organic products and, to a lesser extent, joint processing facilities.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes ☐ / No
…/…
- 69 4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
The Commission must make a bigger effort to explain how certain rules are to be applied and
monitored (which are unclear and ambiguous in the regulation), and who are partly responsible for the
different interpretations by operators, the competent authorities and control authorities and bodies. In
any case, there should be a place where to send questions (from operators, authorities and relevant
bodies) and a public address (for example, the Commission's web page on organic production), where
the Commission services can publish responses, enabling a common "case-law" to be developed and
thus harmonising the interpretation of all questions which appear at any given moment.
In addition, the obligation to pay an annual visit to all operators should be abolished in order to
increase checks in those businesses facing greater risks, underpinned by more efficient and realistic
control planning.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes
/ No ☐
Yes, because it gives the Commission's technical services too much discretion over very sensitive
issues, in such a way that it will not permit the direct participation of the Member States, which are
responsible for applying the control system. In this connection, it should also be pointed out that the
competent authorities at regional level, which are responsible for applying the control system in their
respective regions and are therefore familiar with the real problems involved in applying the rules,
remain on the margins of the Commission's work, since it only has contact with the Member States'
central authorities, which sometimes have no real power over the application of these controls.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
The proposal includes the same principles as the current regulation, but provides for different rules.
This does not make sense, since the rules are based on principles. Therefore, if the rules change, so
…/…
- 70 too should the principles underpinning them.
The principles, on the other hand, are unique to the entire production system. Therefore, the rules of
application should also be equivalent and homogeneous, regardless of the type of activity carried out
by the operators. Very different rules should not be used to regulate these different activities, since
they all correspond to the same principles.
In this way, if there is a preference for livestock feed to come from the same area, in order to ensure
territorial integration, the same must occur in the case of the ingredients, which preferably should be
based on local production, since this is a question of applying the same logic. At the same time, if
parallel production is not permitted, neither should parallel processing be allowed, or parallel
marketing of bulk products.
Therefore, the proposal does not meet the objectives set and should be withdrawn or amended
comprehensively.
As regards an alternative model which continues to promote the growth of the market and
international trade of organic products, but which does not abandon development of more organic
production based on the local market, a two-tier system is proposed:
• Basic certification, based on the market and with flexible rules. This certification will provide
an answer for consumers looking essentially for certified organic food. The production rules
should be geared to a common international standard and facilitate the establishment of
international trade agreements and equality of opportunities among operators from various
areas.
•
Enhanced certification, based on the principles and establishment of combined rules for
certified local organic production and marketing. This certification would be for consumers
looking for more consistency and organic integrity throughout the process, from field to table.
The competent authorities would be responsible for regulating this second level, on the basis
of the possibilities and particular features of each zone, and European law should be limited
to recognising this option and encouraging its adoption and promotion.
…/…
- 71 -
10. Friuli-Venezia Giulia Regional Assembly
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes ☐ / No ⌧
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes ⌧ / No ☐
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes ⌧ / No ☐
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
…/…
- 72 -
Yes ☐ / No ⌧
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes ⌧/ No ☐
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes ☐ / No ⌧
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
It will have a positive impact on fair competition since no "short cuts" can be granted to groups
of operators. Furthermore, this simplifies the legal framework and will hopefully speed up
implementation since technical consultations or opinions will not be necessary to decide whether
or not to allow specific exceptions. However, eliminating the possibility of exceptions at
regional/national levels means that there will be no flexibility and possibility to adapt to local
conditions (environmental, structural, agronomic, economic …). This will have a negative
impact on the sustainability of organic farming. Nevertheless, since the article on flexibility in
the current regulation (Regulation EC 834) has scarcely been used in the recent past, there are
far more arguments in favour than against.
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
The level of consumer awareness of European certification rules makes the removal of
exceptions an absolutely secondary issue.
With regard to fair trade: this has not been a problem so far.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
…/…
- 73 -
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes ⌧/ No ☐
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes ☐ / No ⌧
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
Yes with respect to fair competition, since at the moment even interpretations differ among
Member States. An alternative would be a genuinely harmonised system, but combined with
efficient information sharing between the Member States and the Commission regarding the
exceptions granted and the various interpretations of rules.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
There has been little impact on the internal market since so far, with regard to
documentary checks, only the certificates and in some cases the inspection reports have
been taken into account. As a result, there will be no impact in practice.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes ⌧ / No ☐
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
Refer to 3b. However, it will increase the workload of the Commission and the Member States.
…/…
- 74 -
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes ⌧ / No ☐
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
Lost sight and awareness of the facts and issues surrounding organic farming. Organic
farming practices in the various European regions are far more diverse than in traditional
farming. The strength of organic farming lies in this very diversity. If the Commission is given
extensive implementing powers, there is a risk that the problems might be assessed too
restrictively, which would undermine the values of organic farming, such as its capacity for
sustainability in a range of environments.
A small group of experts cannot represent Europe's entire organic sector. An alternative would
be to extend and strengthen the EGTOP but this would mean replacing voluntary work with
remunerated work in order to ensure independence and greater time commitments.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
Quick and harmonised responses are what the organic farming sector needs in order to
guarantee credibility and fair play and the removal of exceptions is a good way to ensure this.
However, local authorities have a far deeper and detailed understanding of conditions and
needs (which may vary from year to year) and are in a better position to assess requests for
derogations or exceptions, but at the same time to improve the sustainability of the local
implementation of organic farming.
Continuous and efficient communication between the Commission and the regional/national
authorities will have to be ensured in order to meet these two requirements.
…/…
- 75 -
11. Region Västra Götaland
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes
/ No
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes
/ No
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
Region Västra Götaland does not have a direct role in application or enforcement of EU organic
legislation.
However, Region Västra Götaland is promoting organic production and consumption through
programmes promoting sustainable food production, including financial support to various
development projects.
As a large organisation Region Västra Götaland plays a significant role as consumer as well. Through
public procurement the organisation has a position as forerunner, with the possibility of setting a good
example. In 2013 the share of organic food purchased by Region Västra Götaland reached 29% of a
total consumption of 141 million SEK (more than 15 million euro). Region Västra Götaland has set a
political target of a 50% organic share by the year 2020.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
…/…
- 76 of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes
/ No
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes
/ No
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes
/ No
N/A
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes
/ No
N/A
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
The intention of the proposed EU action is comprehensive, with the ambition to create homogenous
conditions for organic production within the EU. However, national and regional conditions vary
significantly throughout Europe and the intended equality would not be reached through this proposal.
I.e. for some organic producers the proposed changes will in fact lead to a disadvantaged position.
The current possibility for Member States to grant exceptions serves as a means to level out
differences.
A primary objective for the proposed EU regulation is said to be increased consumer confidence in
organic products. The acknowledged and continuous market growth is in itself proof of existing
consumer confidence. The experience in Västra Götaland gives that the most significant barrier to
further market growth is in fact a limited supply of organic products.
…/…
- 77 -
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes
/ No
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes
/ No
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
Harmonised controls as well as risk based controls contribute to a level playing field. The introduced
possibility of group certifications will reduce obstacles for SMEs to enter the market.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
…/…
- 78 -
Yes
/ No
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
Region Västra Götaland considers the proposed legislation as premature. The current legislative
framework is considered sufficient for the time being and preferable to the proposed regulation.
The proposed regulation will lead to a decrease in organic production rather than the intended
increase. An important example is the high requirements for the share of animal feed being produced
on the farm itself, alternatively regionally produced. E.g. an increase of requirements from 60 % to 90
% of feed for certain types of livestock. Another example is the requirement of all retailers being
certified which is not necessary concerning pre-packaged goods.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes
/ No
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
The power of the Commission to adopt delegated and implementing acts, combined with the removal
of a possibility for Member States to grant exceptions, may constitute a severe obstacle for organic
producers. The Commission does not have knowledge about specific local and regional conditions.
There is also cause for concern that delegated and implementing acts will lead to rapid changes in the
conditions for organic producers. The likely outcome is discouragement and as a result, a decrease in
organic production in the European Union.
…/…
- 79 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
(max 350 words)
If the proposed regulation is implemented, there is a great risk that organic production as well as
market availability of organic products will decrease substantially.
Region Västra Götaland considers the proposed regulation unnecessary. Region Västra Götaland
suggests that the proposed regulation is dismissed. Alternatively the regulation should be rewritten in
its entirety in order to create favourable and stable conditions for organic producers.
…/…
- 80 -
12. Basque Government (Directorate for Quality and Agri-Food Industries)
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes
/ No ☐
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes
/ No ☐
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
The Department for Economic Development and Competitiveness, via the Directorate for Quality and
Agri-Food Industries, is responsible for oversight audits in its capacity as the competent authority
under Regulation 882/2004 on official controls.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes ☐ / No
…/…
- 81 -
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes ☐ / No
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes
/ No ☐
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes ☐ / No
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
Yes, in theory, if the principles were to apply equally to all operators, with similar rules for all
subsectors. However, the proposal does not retain criteria for ensuring proportionality between
operators and regions, or for ensuring the viability of existing farms in the organic agriculture sector.
The objective will not be achieved because the removal of exceptions (e.g. for parallel production)
would apply to some arable and livestock farmers but not to processors and importers.
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
…/…
- 82 i) fair competition among operators
Yes
/ No ☐
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes
/ No ☐
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
The real problem is the co-existence of public and private certification systems, and the lack of a
flexible system for harmonisation by means of technical instructions. Some of the proposal's
objectives appear to be designed to meet the needs of private certification bodies (group certification,
risk-based controls), while others appear to be a response to consumers' lack of confidence, without
considering the real origin of this, which might lie in a lack of information, or in campaigns organised
to discredit it or at least to misinform the public about its benefits.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes ☐ / No
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
There is a risk that the sector will be marginalised. Alternatives:
1.- A scaled-down proposal that removes a few exceptions and clarifies "pending" issues such as the
definition of an area in the context of livestock-feeding, the housing of poultry, parallel production,
etc.
2.- By analogy with the intention to restrict imports by moving from "equivalence" to "compliance",
…/…
- 83 parallelism is also needed of the system between Member States. Clearly there should still be a single
obligatory EU logo or identifying mark, together with some minimum regulatory requirements
(Regulation 834/2007), but with the possibility of developing the rules at domestic level for matters
where a single regulation for the whole EU is not feasible (for climate-related or cultural reasons,
etc.): rules on greenhouse cultivation, origin of fodder, accommodation, etc.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes
/ No ☐
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
The powers that are to be given to the Commission should be ring-fenced, not only for the adoption of
delegated acts applying the regulatory provisions established in the proposed new regulation; the
worrying aspect is the granting of powers to adopt agreements to supplement and amend the
provisions laid down in the regulation adopted by co-decision of the Council and the Parliament. The
granting of this power to amend the regulation could be excessive in areas such as conversion to
organic agriculture (Article 8(6)); livestock production (Article 11(2)); production rules for processed
food and feed (Article 13(2)); production rules for wine (Article 14(2)); production rules for other
products (Article 16); collection, packaging, transport and storage (Article 18), etc.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
A thorough review should be conducted as to whether the removal of exceptions is in keeping with
the proportionality principle. As in the case of parallel production, there should be consideration of
possible alternatives that would pose less of a threat to the development of organic agriculture in
certain regions (cereal-growing in Alava), insofar as it is possible to establish official control,
separation and traceability measures. The national authorities should have some leeway to apply
…/…
- 84 conditional exceptions here.
The references to fraud should be explained, in order to make it clear whether the failure lies with the
system of internal controls of EU producers or the border checks conducted by the central authorities,
and to set out the findings regarding fraud, so as to be able to show objectively the extent to which the
proposed new regulation as currently drafted is justified by the need to tackle fraud.
…/…
- 85 -
13. Lombardy Regional Assembly
APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EU ORGANIC LEGISLATION BY LOCAL AND
REGIONAL AUTHORITIES
1. Is your local/regional authority involved in:
a) the application of EU organic legislation (e.g. power to grant exceptions or similar
prerogatives delegated from central authorities)?
Yes
/ No
b) its enforcement (e.g. surveillance, controls)?
Yes
/ No
As relevant, please specify briefly how your local/regional authority is involved.
The Region of Lombardy has powers in the following areas:
- notification and updating the list of organic operators in accordance with Article 28 of Regulation
EC/2007/834;
- overseeing the control system in the area of organic farming in accordance with Article 27 of
Regulation EC/2007/834, in line with the principle of subsidiarity with the central administration
(Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy – central inspectorate for quality and repression of
fraud);
- granting exceptions in accordance with Article 22 of Regulation EC/2007/834;
- participating in shaping national provisions and other acts necessary to ensure that EU legislation on
organic farming is applied;
- coordinating organic farming;
- promoting local organic products.
SUBSIDIARITY
Removal of exceptions
The proposed review of the legal framework aims at ensuring, by further harmonisation of certain
areas, that the internal market for organic products functions properly. The draft Regulation will
specifically reduce the possibility for Member States to grant exceptions to the rules (in relation, to
inter alia: the obligation to manage agricultural holdings in their entirety in compliance with the
…/…
- 86 requirements applicable to organic production; the obligation to use exclusively organic agricultural
ingredients in the composition of organic processed products; the possibility to exempt certain types
of retailers from the application of the Regulation, etc.)
2a. Do you believe that a removal of exceptions is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators?
Yes
/ No
ii) improved or maintained consumer confidence?
Yes
/ No
iii) a clear and uncomplicated legal framework?
Yes
/ No
iv) a trade free from obstacles?
Yes
/ No
2b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from
a removal of such exceptions in order to achieve the above objectives?
While agreeing with the objective of gradually eliminating exceptions, we would point out that
simplifying the legislative framework based solely on setting out principles and abolishing
exceptions will not necessarily help make the sector stronger – to date, consumer confidence in
the sector has not ceased to grow. Abolishing derogations, introducing the requirement to
manage the entire business along organic lines and making retailers subject to certification
could in fact result in lower rates of organic production in Europe, higher imports, less local
advantage in environmental and economic terms and failure to meet consumer demand.
We would suggest using Regulation EC/2007/834's provisions, including those on exceptions,
as a starting point and establishing criteria on a case-by-case basis.
2c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why the proposed EU action, i.e.
a reinforcement of the existing rules, is not necessary to achieve the above objectives.
…/…
- 87 -
Harmonisation of controls and response to non-compliance
The Commission proposal further aims at preserving the integrity of organic production and ensuring
a level playing field for operators by introducing inter alia a common approach in relation to controls
and non-compliance with the rules, e.g. in the case of presence of non-authorised substance residues
in organic products.
3. Do you believe that a harmonisation of controls and a common approach to the same noncompliance with EU organic legislation is necessary in order to achieve:
i) fair competition among operators
Yes
/ No
ii) an effective functioning of the internal market
Yes
/ No
3b. If yes, and as possible, please specify briefly the need for and the added value resulting from the
proposed reinforcement of the existing rules.
We would like to make a few comments, while broadly supporting the implementation of the
regulation as regards controls.
Incorporating control of organic production into the official controls regulation is certainly a positive
step. Harmonising the system promotes fair competition between operators and the reduction of
unequal treatment of non-compliance in the EU Member States.
However, it is important to bear in mind that controls in organic production focus on processes and
not on products, albeit with specific features. The relevant delegated acts must allow for appeal to the
European consultative body for organic farming.
3c. If no, and as possible, please specify briefly the reasons why a strengthening of the existing rules
is not necessary in this context.
…/…
- 88 -
PROPORTIONALITY
4a. Do you believe that the actions proposed in the draft Regulation (in particular those examined in
point 2 and 3 of the questionnaire) is the appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes
/ No
4b. If you consider that the proposed actions go further than necessary, what, in your opinion, would
be a less restrictive, alternative way of achieving the intended objectives? If relevant, please provide a
brief answer.
DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS
A large number of the provisions in the draft Regulation contain empowerment clauses which give the
Commission the power to adopt delegated and/or implementing acts in accordance with Article 290
and 291 TFEU, in most of the regulatory areas.
5. Do you believe that the extensive delegated and implementing powers of the Commission provided
in the proposal is a cause for concern?
Yes
/ No
If possible and relevant, please specify briefly why.
Following on from the proposal for a regulation, the reform of the organic sector will only be
completed with the adoption of delegated acts which will need to include components crucial for the
sector, in a way which is not really consistent with the nature of delegated acts. It follows that the
proposal, while containing undeniably positive aspects such as incorporating organic farming into a
framework of strategic policies, might not be the sole legislative reference for operators, thereby
failing to guarantee legal certainty and moreover failing to give the Member States the opportunity to
participate directly in the framing of the delegated acts.
…/…
- 89 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Please indicate any other subsidiarity or proportionality concerns that the draft Regulation gives rise
to in your view.
max 350 words)