3.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 113/1

(1)

Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (2) sets out the active substances deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(2)

The approval periods of the substances haloxyfop-P and napropamide will expire on 31 December 2020.

(3)

The approval periods of the substances bromuconazole and buprofezin will expire on 31 January 2021.

(4)

Applications for the renewal of the approval of the active substances included in this Regulation were submitted in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (3). However, the approval of those substances is likely to expire for reasons beyond the control of the applicant before a decision has been taken on the renewal of their approval. It is therefore necessary to extend their approval periods in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(5)

In view of the time and resources necessary for completing the assessment of applications for renewal of approvals of large number of active substances the approvals of which are expiring between 2019 and 2021, Commission Implementing Decision C(2016)6104 (4) established a work programme grouping together similar active substances and setting priorities on the basis of safety concerns for human and animal health or the environment as provided for in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

(6)

As the active substances included in this Regulation do not fall in the prioritised categories of Implementing Decision C(2016)6104, their approval period should be extended by either two or three years, taking into account the current date of expiry, the fact that in accordance with Article 6(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 the supplementary dossier for an active substance is to be submitted no later than 30 months before expiry of the approval, the need to ensure a balanced distribution of responsibilities and work among Member States acting as rapporteurs and co-rapporteurs and the available resources necessary for assessment and decision-making. It is therefore appropriate to extend the approval period for the active substance buprofezin by two years, and to extend the approval periods of the active substances bromuconazole, haloxyfop-P and napropamide by three years.

(7)

In view of the aim of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, as regards cases where no supplementary dossier in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 is submitted no later than 30 months before the respective expiry date laid down in the Annex to this Regulation, the Commission will set the expiry date at the same date as before this Regulation or at the earliest date thereafter.

(8)

In view of the aim of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, as regards cases where the Commission will adopt a Regulation providing that the approval of an active substance referred to in the Annex to this Regulation is not renewed because the approval criteria are not satisfied, the Commission will set the expiry date at the same date as before this Regulation or at the date of the entry into force of the Regulation providing that the approval of the active substance is not renewed, whichever date is later. As regards cases where the Commission will adopt a Regulation providing for the renewal of an active substance referred to in the Annex to this Regulation, the Commission will endeavour to set, as appropriate under the circumstances, the earliest possible application date.

(9)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

3.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 113/4

(1)

On 20 October 2017, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (3) (‘the AD notice of initiation’), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding (‘the anti-dumping proceeding’) with regard to imports into the Union of electric bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) following a complaint lodged on 8 September 2017 by the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (‘the complainant’ or ‘EBMA’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of electric bicycles.

(2)

On 21 December 2017, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (4) (‘the AS notice of initiation’), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding (‘the anti-subsidy proceeding’) with regard to imports into the Union of electric bicycles originating in the PRC following a complaint lodged on 8 November 2017 by the complainant on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of electric bicycles.

(3)

The product subject to registration (‘the product concerned’) for both proceedings is cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor, originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN codes 8711 60 10 and ex 8711 60 90 (TARIC code 8711609010). These CN and TARIC codes are given for information only.

(4)

The complainant indicated in its complaints its intention to request registration. On 31 January 2018, the complainant submitted registration requests pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The complainant requested that imports of the product concerned be made subject to registration so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration, provided all conditions set out in the basic Regulations are met.

(5)

According to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, the Commission may direct the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps to register imports, so that measures may subsequently be applied against those imports from the date of such registration, provided all conditions set out in the basic Regulations are met. Imports may be made subject to registration following a request from the Union industry, which contains sufficient evidence to justify such action.

(6)

According to the complainant, registration is justified as the product concerned is being dumped and subsidised. Significant injury to the Union industry, is being caused by an acceleration of low-priced imports which will undermine the remedial effect of potential definitive duties by allowing stockpiling ahead of the 2018 selling season.

(7)

The Commission examined the request in the light of Article 10(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 16(4) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

(8)

With respect to the dumping part of the request, the Commission verified whether the importers were aware, or should have been aware, of the dumping as regards the extent of the dumping and the injury alleged or found. It also analysed whether there was a further substantial rise in imports which, in the light of its timing and volume and other circumstances, is likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive anti-dumping duty to be applied.

(9)

With respect to the subsidy part of the request, the Commission verified whether there are critical circumstances where, for the subsidised product in question, injury which is difficult to repair is caused by massive imports in a relatively short period of a product benefitting from countervailable subsidies and whether it is deemed necessary to assess countervailing duties retroactively on those imports in order to preclude the recurrence of such injury.

(10)

As regards dumping, at this stage, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient evidence that imports of the product concerned from the PRC are being dumped. In particular, the complainant provided evidence on the normal value based on domestic prices and based on the choice of Switzerland according to Article 2(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

(11)

The evidence of dumping is based on a comparison of the normal value thus established with the export price (at ex-works level) of the product concerned when sold for export to the Union. As a whole, and given the extent of the alleged dumping margins ranging from 193 % to 430 %, this evidence provides sufficient support at this stage that the exporting producers practice dumping.

(12)

That information was contained in the notice of initiation for this proceeding published on 20 October 2017.

(13)

Giant, an exporting producer with a related importer, claimed that the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation was not sufficient to establish awareness of dumping.

(14)

By its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, the notice of initiation is a public document accessible to all importers. Furthermore, as interested parties in the investigation, importers have access to the non-confidential version of the complaint. Therefore, the Commission considered that the importers were aware, or should have been aware, of the alleged dumping practices, the extent thereof and the alleged injury at the latest at that moment.

(15)

The same interested party claimed that an importer could not be expected to be aware of the application of Article 2(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and even less able to anticipate the normal value against which Chinese export prices into the Union should be assessed.

(16)

The Commission noted that the application of Article 2(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation was mentioned in the complaint and also referred to it in the notice of initiation.

(17)

The complaint also provided sufficient evidence of alledged injury showing a steep decline of the market share of the Union Industry from 42,5 % in 2014 to 28,6 % in the period used for the complaint, depressed and declining levels of profitability from 3,4 % of turnover in 2014 to 2,1 % in the period used for the complaint as well as underselling calculations ranging from 153 % to 206 %.

(18)

The Commission thus concluded that the first criterion for registration was met with respect to the dumping part of the request.

(19)

Eurostat data do not allow a full analysis of the evolution of imports of electric bicycles into the Union. Indeed, while the investigation period starts in October 2016, an estimated 99 % of imports of electric bicycles were classified until January 2017 under a CN code which covered other products.

(20)

In this context, the complainant provided detailed figures based on the export data of the Chinese customs from January 2014 until February 2018. Based on submissions from interested parties and a reconciliation of statistics, the Commission considered that there is a delay of two months between exports from the PRC and imports into the Union.

(21)

In its analysis, the Commission therefore considered that the Chinese customs' export data provided sufficient prima facie evidence of imports into the Union with a two-month delay for shipment. To determine the amount of imports during the investigation period (i.e. 1 October 2016 - 30 September 2017), the Commission thus used the Chinese export data between August 2016 and July 2017.

(22)

The volume of exports from the PRC to the Union increased by 82 % in the period from November 2017 to February 2018 when compared to the period from November 2016 to February 2017. In addition, the average monthly volume of exports from the PRC to the Union in the period from November 2017 to February 2018 was 64 % higher than the average monthly volume of imports to the Union during the investigation period. The Commission considered that these figures provided evidence of a substantial increase in imports.

(23)

Some unrelated importers and Giant claimed that the raw Chinese export data relied upon by the complainant to support its request for registration should be disclosed in the non-confidential file in order to ensure the reliability of the source and of the data supplied. Importers claim that the codes used were not mentioned and could include other products.

(24)

The complainant made available to the Commission the detailed statistics used to support its request. The disclosure of these data would breach copyrights. However, the complainant made available in the non-confidential version of the request the aggregated export figures per month and per year. The complainant also indicated that the source was the Chinese customs, mentioned the codes used and explained its methodology to exclude other products than the product concerned. As such, the source was known and public against payment. Furthermore, these data were broadly corroborated by Eurostat for the period available. No other interested party proposed alternative data or methodology. In these circumstances and given the level of disclosure of aggregated data and methodology on the non-confidential file, the Commission considers that the input data is not necessary for the party concerned to exercise their rights of defence. This argument had therefore to be rejected.

(25)

Some unrelated importers further argued that stockpiling was not possible due to long lead times between design and delivery. In this regard, the Commission considered that the lead-time from designing an electric bicycle to actual delivery did not prevent the possibility of stockpiling an already designed electric bicycle, especially considering the information contained in the complaint concerning spare capacities in the PRC. Furthermore, the available statistical evidence supported the claim that there was a substantial rise in imports. The argument was therefore rejected.

(26)

Some unrelated importers and Giant denied that the increase in Chinese exports provided evidence of a further substantial rise in imports and claimed that it reflected the seasonality of the sales of electric bicycles. The Commission considered that a year-on-year comparison was not influenced by seasonality effects and provided evidence of a rise of 82 % in the volume of imports since the initiation of the case. The argument was therefore rejected.

(27)

Giant denied that the rise of imports was substantial and claimed that it was below or in line with the overall growth in Union demand for electric bicycles. Giant quoted the publications of the Confederation of the European Bicycle Industry (‘CONEBI’) which estimated this growth to be 22,2 % in 2016 in comparison with 2015, and of EBMA, the complainant, which estimated the growth rate for 2017 at 23 % in comparison with 2016. Giant claimed that October 2017 was the proper starting point to assess the increase in imports. Giant calculated that based on Eurostat import data, monthly imports of electric bicycles had increased by 8,7 % between October 2017 and January 2018.

(28)

The Commission notes that Giant submitted that the shipment time between exports from the PRC and imports into the Union was ‘at least one or two months’. As a result, the imports in October 2017 corresponded to the exports from the PRC made in August 2017, before the initiation of the investigation. In addition, the average monthly volume of exports from the PRC to the Union in the period from August 2017 to February 2018 was 36 % higher than the average monthly volume of imports to the Union during the investigation period. This growth rate does not take into account the very significant increase of imports which had already occurred during the investigation period and is nevertheless well above the 2016 and 2017 growth rates in the Union market demand.

(29)

Therefore, the Commission concluded that the second criterion for registration for the dumping part of the request was also met.

(30)

The Commission has at its disposal sufficient evidence that additional injury would be caused by a continued rise in imports from the PRC at further decreasing prices.

(31)

As established in recitals (19) to (29), there is sufficient evidence of a substantial rise in imports of the product concerned.

(32)

In addition, there is evidence of a decreasing trend in the import prices of the product concerned. The average price in euros of imports from the PRC into the Union was indeed 8 % lower in the period from November 2017 to February 2018 than in the period from November 2016 to February 2017 and 7 % lower when compared to the investigation period.

(33)

Additional circumstances show that the further substantial rise in imports is likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the duties to be applied. It is indeed reasonable to assume that the imports of the product concerned may further increase prior to the adoption of provisional measures, if any, since the latter would occur at the latest around the 20th of July which would coincide with the end of the 2018 selling season of electric bicycles.

(34)

Such further rise in imports following the initiation of the case is thus likely, in light of its timing, volume and other circumstances (such as the excess capacity in the PRC and pricing behaviour of Chinese exporting producers) to seriously undermine the remedial effect of any definitive duty, unless such duty would be applied retroactively.

(35)

The Commission therefore concluded that the third criterion for registration for the dumping part of the request was also met.

(36)

As regards subsidisation, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient evidence that imports of the product concerned from the PRC are being subsidised. The alleged subsidies consist, inter alia, of (i) direct transfer of funds and liabilities, such as grants, preferential loans, directed credits by state-owned banks as well as private banks, as well as export credits and guarantees and export insurance; (ii) government revenue forgone or not collected, such as income tax reductions and exemptions, import tariff rebates, withholding tax reductions and VAT exemptions and rebates; and (iii) government provision of input materials and land and energy for less than adequate remuneration. Such evidence was made available in the open version of the complaint and in the memorandum on sufficient evidence.

(37)

It is alleged that the above schemes are subsidies since they involve a financial contribution from the Government of the PRC or other regional governments (including public bodies) and confer a benefit to the exporting producers of the product concerned. They are alleged to be contingent upon export performance and/or the use of domestic over imported goods and/or are limited to certain sectors and/or types of enterprises and/or locations, and are therefore specific and countervailable.

(38)

Therefore, the available evidence at this stage shows that the exports of the product concerned are benefiting from countervailable subsidies.

(39)

Furthermore, the Commission has at its disposal sufficient evidence that the exporting producers' subsidy practices are causing material injury to the Union industry. In the complaint and the subsequent submissions related to the requests for registration, the evidence regarding the volume of imports shows a massive increase of imports in absolute terms and in terms of market share in the period between 2014 and the investigation period as well as in recent months. Specifically, the evidence available shows that Chinese exporting producers have more than tripled the volume of the product concerned exported to the Union, from 219 thousand units to 703 thousand units (+ 484 thousand units), which resulted in a sharp increase of market share from 19,2 % to 33 %. Furthermore, as indicated in recital (22) above, the same trend continued between November 2017 and February 2018. Overall, the evidence shows that the massive increase of imports of electric bicycles from the PRC is resulting in substantial adverse effects on the situation of the Union industry including depressed levels of profitability. The evidence concerning the injury factors set out in Article 3(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 8(4) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation consists of data contained in the complaints and the subsequent submissions regarding registration.

(40)

In addition, the Commission assessed at this stage whether the injury suffered was difficult to repair. Once Chinese suppliers are integrated into the supply chains of the customers of the Union industry, the latter may be reluctant to switch suppliers in favour of Union producers. In addition, the customers of the Union Industry are unlikely to accept higher prices from the Union industry even if, hypothetically, the Commission were to impose countervailing measures without retroactive effect in the future. Such threat of permanent loss of market share or reduced income constitutes an injury which is difficult to repair.

(41)

Finally, given the data set out in recital (39) and the considerations laid down in recital (40), the Commission deemed it necessary to prepare the potential retroactive imposition of measures by imposing registration in order to preclude the recurrence of such injury.

(42)

Therefore, the Commission has concluded that there is sufficient evidence to justify making the imports of the product concerned subject to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and with Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

(43)

All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.

(44)

Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation imports of the product concerned should be made subject to registration for the purpose of ensuring that, should the investigations result in findings leading to the imposition of anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties, those duties can, if the necessary conditions are fulfilled, be levied retroactively on the registered imports in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.

(45)

Any future liability would emanate from the findings of the anti-dumping and the anti-subsidy investigations respectively.

(46)

The allegations in the complaint requesting the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation estimate an average dumping margin of from 193 % to 430 % and an average injury elimination level of 189 % for the product concerned. The amount of possible future liability is set at the level of the injury elimination level estimated on the basis of the complaint, namely 189 % ad valorem on the CIF import value of the product concerned.

(47)

At this stage of the investigation is not yet possible to estimate the amount of subsidisation.The allegations in the complaint requesting the initiation of an anti-subsidy investigation estimate the injury elimination level to represent 189 % for the product concerned. The amount of possible future liability is set at the level of the injury elimination level estimated on the basis of the anti-subsidy complaint, namely 189 % ad valorem on the CIF import value of the product concerned.

(48)

Any personal data collected in the context of this registration will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5),

3.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 113/10

(1)

By Decision 95/196/EC (1) the Commission had approved the long-term national aid scheme for agriculture in the northern regions of Finland (‘Nordic aid scheme’) as notified by Finland pursuant to Article 143 of the Act of Accession with a view to authorisation under Article 142 of the Act of Accession. Decision 95/196/EC was replaced by Commission Decision C(2009) 3067 of 30 April 2009 (2). That Decision was last amended by Commission Decision C(2015) 2790 of 30 April 2015.

(2)

On 12 October 2015 Finland proposed that the Commission amend Decision C(2009) 3067 in order to simplify the administration of the scheme and to take account of the changes in the common agricultural policy as well as of the economic developments in the agriculture in the northern regions of Finland. By letter of 8 June 2016 Finland modified the proposal and sent additional information on the agricultural production in its northern regions.

(3)

Given the resulting amendments to Decision C(2009) 3067 and the number of previous amendments, it is appropriate to replace that Decision by a new Decision.

(4)

The long-term national aid referred to in Article 142 of the Act of Accession is intended to ensure that agricultural activity is maintained in northern regions as determined by the Commission.

(5)

Taking account of the factors referred to in Article 142(1) and (2) of the Act of Accession, the national aid under that Article should be limited to areas situated north of the 62nd parallel or adjacent to that parallel and which are affected by comparable climatic conditions rendering agricultural activity particularly difficult. The municipality (kunta) should be chosen as the relevant administrative unit, including municipalities surrounded by others within such areas, even where they do not satisfy the same requirements.

(6)

In order to facilitate the administration of the scheme and to coordinate it with support under Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 (3) and (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), as well as national aid schemes, it is appropriate to include in the areas receiving aid under this Decision the same municipalities as those belonging to the area delimited under the second subparagraph of Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 in the Rural Development Programme Mainland Finland 2014-2020.

(7)

The reference period in relation to which the development of agricultural production and the level of overall support is to be considered, using the national statistics available as a basis, should remain the same as in Decision C(2009) 3067 and cover 1991, 1992 and 1993 as regards agricultural production.

(8)

According to Article 142 of the Act of Accession, the total amount of the aid granted should be sufficient to maintain agricultural activity in the northern regions of Finland but may not lead to overall support exceeding the level of support during a pre-accession reference period. Therefore it is necessary to take income aid under the common agricultural policy into account when determining the maximum allowable level of aid under that Article. On the basis of 2016 data, the maximum annual aid amount should be set at EUR 563,9 million, calculated as an average over a 5–year period from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2021.

(9)

In order to simplify the Nordic aid scheme and to allow Finland flexibility in directing the aid to different production sectors, while ensuring a balanced distribution of the aid among the sectors, the maximum average annual aid amount should be divided between the aid categories animal husbandry, plant production and other Nordic aid. For cow's milk production it is appropriate to set a separate maximum average annual aid amount, which is sufficient to maintain the production in the northern regions of Finland.

(10)

The aid should be granted annually on the basis of production factors (such as livestock units and ha) within the total limits laid down by this Decision.

(11)

The aid to reindeers should be granted per animal and limited to the traditional number of reindeers in the northern regions of Finland. For the storage of wild berries and mushrooms it should be allowed to pay the aid per kg and for the aid to transport of milk and meat and services indispensable for animal husbandry according to the costs incurred, deducting any other public payments towards the same costs.

(12)

For cow's milk it should be allowed to pay the aid in kg/milk in order to maintain the incentive to efficient production.

(13)

Farm income data from Finland indicate considerable annual volatility of farm income in the northern regions, in particular since 2008. With a view to allowing prompt reactions to the volatility and to maintaining agricultural activities in the northern regions of Finland, it is appropriate to allow Finland to establish, for each calendar year, the amount of aid per sector within an aid category and per unit of production.

(14)

In this regard, Finland should differentiate the aid in its northern regions and set the annual aid amounts according to the severity of the natural handicap and other objective and transparent and justified criteria relating to the objectives set out in the third subparagraph of Article 142(3) of the Act of Accession, which are to maintain traditional primary production and processing particularly suited to the climatic conditions of the regions concerned, to improve the structures for the production, marketing and processing of agricultural products, to facilitate the disposal of the said products and to ensure that the environment is protected and countryside preserved.

(15)

In order to ensure regular payments over the calendar year, Finland should be allowed to pay the aid for a given year using advances based on initial estimates of the number of production factors and production units and pay aid for milk production in monthly instalments based on actual production.

(16)

Overcompensation to the producers should be avoided by recovering undue payments before 1 June of the following year.

(17)

As provided in Article 142(2) of the Act of Accession, the aid granted under this Decision should not lead to an increase in overall production over the traditional production level in the area covered by the Nordic aid scheme.

(18)

Therefore it is necessary to establish an annual maximum number of eligible production factors for each aid category, including a separate maximum for the number of dairy cows, at a level equal to or lower than that in the reference periods.

(19)

As regards the number of dairy cows, account should be taken of the development of production quantity per production factor since the reference periods. Therefore the maximum eligible number of dairy cows should be established based on an average production per cow in the period 2004 to 2013.

(20)

The aid for the breeding, processing and marketing of reindeer should be granted avoiding overcompensation in conjunction with the aid granted in accordance with Article 213 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(21)

As regards plant production, in order to allow flexibility in the use of agricultural land between different production sectors, the maximum allowed area should be 944 300 ha, as set in Annex II to Decision C(2009)3067 as amended by Decision C(2015)2790, which may include a maximum of 481 200 ha grassland.

(22)

For greenhouse production a separate maximum allowed area should be set at 203 ha, which corresponds to the traditional area of production in the northern regions of Finland.

(23)

Where the number of production factors in a category exceeds the maximum number in a given year, the number of eligible production factors should be reduced by a corresponding number of production factors in the calendar year following the year in which the maximum was exceeded.

(24)

In accordance with Article 143(2) of the Act of Accession, Finland is to provide to the Commission information on the implementation and effects of the aid. In order to better assess the long-term effects of the aid and with a view to setting the aid levels as 5-year averages, it is appropriate to report on the socioeconomic effects of the aid every five years and provide annual reports containing the financial and other implementation information necessary to ensure that the conditions laid down in this Decision are complied with.

(25)

Finland should ensure that appropriate control measures are taken vis-à-vis aid beneficiaries. In order to ensure the effectiveness of those measures and transparency in the implementation of the scheme, those control measures should be as far as possible aligned to those carried out under the common agricultural policy.

(26)

Decision C(2009)3067 should therefore be repealed,

(a)

per livestock unit for animal husbandry;

(b)

per hectare for crop production;

(c)

per m2 for glasshouse production;

(d)

per m3 for storage of horticultural products; and

(e)

as a compensation for actual costs for the transport of milk and meat and indispensable services for livestock production, deducting any other public support for the same costs.

(a)

as regards production: 1992 for cow's milk and for cattle, 1993 for horticulture, the average for 1991, 1992 and 1993 for other products;

(b)

as regards the level of overall support: 1993.

(a)

identification of the municipalities in which the aid was paid by means of a detailed map and where necessary by other data;

(b)

the total production, covering the reporting year, for the regions eligible for aid under this Decision, expressed in quantities for each of the products specified in Annex II;

(c)

the total number of production factors, the number of production factors eligible for aid and the number of production factors supported per production sector specified in Annex II with a breakdown by product within each sector, including the indication of any overrun of the allowed maximum annual number of production factors;

(d)

the total aid paid, the total amount of aid per aid category and the type of production, amounts paid to beneficiaries per production factor/other unit, as well as the criteria for differentiating aid amounts by sub-regions and types of farm holdings or on the basis of other considerations;

(e)

the payment system applied with details concerning any advances based on estimates, final payments as well as observed overpayments and their recovery;

(f)

amounts of aid under Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, under Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 and under Article 213 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 paid in the municipalities covered by this Decision; and

(g)

references to national legislation whereby the aid is implemented.

(a)

the total aid paid during the 5-year period, and its distribution among aid categories, types of production and sub-regions;

(b)

the total production, the number of production factors and the income levels of farmers in the regions eligible for the aid;

(c)

the evolution of agricultural production, processing and marketing in the social and economic context of the northern regions;

(d)

the effects of the aid on the protection of the environment and the preservation of the countryside; and

(e)

proposals for the development of the aid based on the data presented in the report, the national and Union context of agricultural production as well as other relevant factors