Communication from the Commission to the Council - Goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty Temporary flat-rate reduction of refunds
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 10. 12. 1999 COM(1999) 673 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty Temporary flat-rate reduction of refunds COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty - Temporary flat-rate reduction of refunds The purpose of this communication is to inform the Council that, despite the three unfavourable opinions delivered by the joint management Committee on milk and milk products, cereals and sugar on 25 November 1999 (milk products: 5 votes in favour, 15 abstentions, 67 votes against; cereals: 72 votes against, 15 abstentions; sugar: 20 abstentions, 67 votes against), the Commission has decided to adopt, by means of regulations (EC) No 2533/1999, No 2534/1999, No 2535/1999, a temporary flat-rate reduction of 4. 5% in the rate of refunds for agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) The European Council in Berlin decided to place a ceiling, as from the budget year 2000, on spending under the EAGGF guarantee section, at a level well below the agricultural guideline. Thus, for the budget year 2000 the ceiling for overall spending under the EAGGF guarantee section is 37 352 million for conventional EAGGF guarantee section spending), which is well below the guideline for the year in € question ( 46 549 million: see Annex 1). 41 738 million (of which € € Consequently, in its letter of amendment to the preliminary draft budget for the year 2000 the Commission puts appropriation requirements for export refunds for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty at 560 million. € 578 million (due to the general increase Current forecasts for the year 2000 are about in refund levels compared with 1999). In addition, this figure does not take account of a possible upturn in the Russian market and/or the Asian market. € € A saving of 18 million must therefore be made for the budget year 2000. In its Communication to the Council adopted on 24 November, the Commission indicated the problem which will be caused in the medium and long term by placing a ceiling on expenditure on non-Annex I refunds, and proposed a global approach involving the introduction of several economy measures. In any event, it will be impossible to implement these measures until the second half of the budget year at the earliest. In addition, the Commission estimates the time lag between export and the payment of non-Annex I refunds to be three months. Accordingly, a reduced rate applied on the day of export will have only a delayed effect on the budget (even more delayed where refund rates are fixed in advance). 18 million over the period 16 October 1999 to To make an immediate saving of 15 October 2000, the Commission, aware that reduced refund rates would not affect the budget until 1 February 2000, has taken the initiative of proposing a general and € 2 temporary flat-rate reduction of 4. 5%. This reduction has been in application since 1 November 1999, following the joint Committee’s failure to deliver an opinion on 28 October 1999. (10) Since then, two new factors have complicated the situation: firstly, the budget for non- Annex I refunds has been reduced to 557 million; secondly, prices have continued to fall on the world markets, notably for sugar and cereals, forcing the Commission to maintain and increase refund rates beyond what was forecast. € (11) Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 stipulates that “The rate of refund shall be fixed for each month. ”. The opinions of the relevant management Committees ought therefore to be sought each month regarding the fixing of rates. Given the circumstances, the Commission proposed maintaining the temporary flat- rate reduction of 4. 5% for the three types of product (milk products, cereals, sugar). This proposal was put to the joint management Committee for milk products, cereals and sugar on 25 November 1999 for an opinion, and received an unfavourable opinion (see above). (12) In view of the circumstances, the Commission has decided to adopt and apply the regulations (EC) No 2533/1999, No 2534/1999, No 2535/1999 as from 1 December 1999. This decision must be communicated to the Council in accordance with Article 23(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1766/92 on the common organisation of the market in cereals and the corresponding Articles of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (milk and milk products) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 (sugar). 3 ANNEX 1 Budget year 2000: Appropriation requirements from the EAGGF Guarantee Section Chapter Sector Budget appropriations 1999 (1) (2) Appropriation requirements based on PDB 2000 Appropriations PDB 2000 (2) Requirements based on LA in PDB 2000 Appropriation to be entered in LA in PDB 2000 (2) Variation in LA requirements compared with PDB requirements a B1 - 10 B1 - 11 B1 - 12 B1 - 13 B1 - 14 B1 - 15 B1 - 16 B1 - 17 B1 - 18 B1 - 20 B1 - 21 B1 - 22 B1 - 23 B1 - 25 B1 - 26 B1 - 30 B1 - 31 B1 - 32 B1 - 33 B1 - 36 B1 - 37 B1 - 38 B1 - 39 B1 - 40 b Arable crops Sugar Olive oil Died fodder and grain legumes Fibre plants Fruit and vegetables Wine Tobacco Other sectors or vegetable products Milk and milk products Beef/veal Sheepmeat and goatmeat Pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat Other animal product measures Fisheries Non-annex I products Food programmes POSEI Veterinary and plant health measures Monitoring and preventative measures Clearance of previous years' accounts Promotion Other measures Total titles 1. 2 and 3 "Berlin" subceiling Margin Rural development "Berlin" subceiling Margin Total EAGGF Guarantee Guideline Margin compared with guideline c 17 831 1 937 2 233 388 968 1 701 661 980 290 2 621 4 916 1 755 365 29 20 610 368 246 56 -510 92 266 37 823 - - 2 617 - - 40 440 45 188 4 748 d 16 815 1 873 2 387 385 934 1 680 718 978 307 2 686 4 733 2 050 236 10 20 560 316 245 105. 5 59 -400 70. 5 796 37 564 37 352 -212 3 587 4 386 799 41 151 46 549 5 398 (3) e 16 704 1 861 2 371 382 928 1 669 713 972 305 2 668 4 702 2 037 234 10 20 556 314 243 104. 5 59 -400 70. 5 791 37 314 37 352 38 3 587 4 386 799 40 901 46 549 5 648 (3) f 16 930 2 031 2 228 387 1 041 1 682 708 992 316 2 788 4 542 1 864 472 10 14 560 340 245 109. 5 59 -700 69. 5 849 37 537 37 352 -185 3 787 4 386 599 41 324 46 549 5 225 (3) h = f – d 115 158 -159 2 107 2 -10 14 9 102 -191 -186 236 0 -6 0 24 0 4 0 -300 -1 53 -27 200 173 g 16 842 2 020 2 216 385 1 036 1 673 704 987 314 2 773 4 518 1 854 470 10 14 557 338 244 108. 5 59 -700 69. 5 845 37 337 37 352 15 3 787 4 386 599 41 124 46 549 5 425 (3) (1) (2) (3) Expenditure or appropriations covered by EAGGF Guarantee in 1999 but subdivided according to the nomenclature proposed for 2000. Including appropriations entered in B0 - 40 (reserve and provision). SAPARD expenditure is also to be financed within the guideline (EUR 529 million). Million Euro Variation in LA appropriations compared with PDB appropriations i = g - e 138 159 -155 3 108 4 -9 15 9 105 -184 -183 236 0 -6 1 24 1 4 0 -300 -1 54 23 200 223 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5. 0 5. 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENT BUDGET HEADING: B I-30 TITLE: Measures to reduce refund rates for goods not covered by Annex I LEGAL BASIS: Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty AIMS OF PROJECT/ Budget saving of FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 18 million € PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS (EUR million) DATE: 25/11/99 APPROPRIATIONS: CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR (98) (EUR million) FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR (99) (EUR million) CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION OTHER EXPENDITURE - (REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) - - REVENUE - (LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) NATIONAL - OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC 5. 0. 1 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 5. 1. 1 ESTIMATED REVENUE (see observations) 5. 2 METHOD OF CALCULATION: 2000 2001 2002 2003 6. 0 6. 1 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? IS A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET NECESSARY? 6. 2 6. 3 WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? OBSERVATIONS: NO NO NO NO 5