(1)

Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) provides that the annual ceiling for expenditure under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) is to be constituted by the maximum amounts set for it under Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 (4). Pursuant to Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 an adjustment rate of financial discipline is to be determined, when necessary, in order to ensure that the annual ceilings set out in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 for the financing of the market-related expenditure and direct payments for the period 2014-2020 are respected. Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 does not provide for ceilings for financial years after 2020. In order to ensure that the ceiling for the financing of the market-related expenditure and direct payments is also respected in financial years after 2020, Articles 16 and 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 need to refer, for those financial years, to the amounts set under the EAGF in the Regulation to be adopted by the Council pursuant to Article 312(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for the years 2021 to 2027.

(2)

Flexibility between pillars is an optional transfer of funds between direct payments and rural development. Under Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), Member States may make use of that flexibility as regards the calendar years 2014 to 2019. In order to ensure that Member States are able to maintain their own strategy, Regulation (EU) 2019/288 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) extended the flexibility between pillars to calendar year 2020, that is to say financial year 2021. Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 currently provides for the transfer from rural development to direct payments as a percentage of the amount allocated to support financed under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in financial year 2021 by Union legislation adopted after the adoption by the Council of the relevant Regulation pursuant to Article 312(2) TFEU. Since the relevant Union legislation will not be adopted by the time the Member States need to notify their decision to transfer, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility to continue to apply that flexibility and to establish the maximum amount that may be transferred.

The maximum absolute amount per Member States is calculated on the basis of the maximum percentages provided for in Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 to be applied to the amounts to be allocated to support for types of interventions for rural development under the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the Common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

(3)

In accordance with Article 53(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, Member States had the option to review, by 1 August 2019, the percentage of their national ceiling for direct payments that they allocate to voluntary coupled support (VCS), as well as their detailed support decisions from calendar year 2020. Member States will only notify their decision on transfer from direct payments to rural development, if any, by 31 December 2019, and on transfer from rural development to direct payments, if any, shortly thereafter. However, such decision will affect their national ceiling for direct payments for calendar year 2020. In order to maintain consistency between the detailed support decisions and the VCS budgetary ceiling, it is appropriate to allow Member States to review, to the extent necessary to adjust to their decision relating to flexibility between pillars, the percentage allocated to VCS, as well as the detailed support decisions. Consequently, the relevant notification deadline should also be shortly after 31 December 2019. As that review is limited to the extent necessary for Member States to adjust to their decision relating to flexibility between pillars, Member States should explain in their notification the link between the review and that decision.

(4)

Regulations (EU) No 1306/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

In order to enable the amendments provided for in this Regulation to be applied as soon as possible, it was considered to be appropriate to provide for an exception to the eight-week period referred to in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the TFEU and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

(6)

In order to enable the amendments provided for in this Regulation to be applied as soon as possible, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

in Article 16, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(2)

in Article 26, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(1)

in Article 14(2), the sixth subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘By 8 February 2020, Member States may decide to make available for calendar year 2020 as direct payments an amount not higher than the amount set out in Annex VIa. As a result, the corresponding amount shall no longer be available for support financed under the EAFRD for financial year 2021. That decision shall be notified to the Commission by 8 February 2020 and shall set out the amount to be transferred.’;

(2)

in Article 53, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:

(3)

Annex VIa, the text of which is set out in the Annex to this Regulation, is inserted.

(1)

Article 4 of the Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes the criteria for granting tariff preferences under the general arrangement of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (‘GSP’).

(2)

Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 provides that a country that has been classified by the World Bank as a high-income or an upper-middle income country for three consecutive years immediately prior to the updating of list of beneficiary countries should no longer benefit from GSP.

(3)

The list of beneficiary countries under the GSP referred to in point (a) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 is established in Annex II to that Regulation. Pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, the Commission should review Annex II by 1 January each year in order to amend the status of the listed countries in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 4.

(4)

Pursuant to point (a) of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 a GSP beneficiary country and economic operators should be given sufficient time for an orderly change to the country’s GSP status. Accordingly, the GSP arrangement should continue for one year after the date of entry into force of a change in a country’s status pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.

(5)

Nauru, Samoa and Tonga have been classified by the World Bank as upper-middle income countries in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Accordingly, they no longer qualify for GSP beneficiary status under Article 4(1)(a) and should be removed from Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. The GSP arrangement for those countries should continue for one year after the date of entry into force of the decision to remove those countries from Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. Therefore, in the interest of simplicity and legal certainty, Nauru, Samoa and Tonga should be removed from Annex II with application from 1 January 2021,

(1)

Pursuant to point (a) of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, a country benefiting from the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (‘GSP’) may benefit from the tariff preferences provided under the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance if it is considered vulnerable due to lack of diversification and insufficient integration within the international trading system, as defined in Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.

(2)

Pursuant to point 1(b) of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, for a country to be considered vulnerable, the imports of products listed in Annex IX into the Union from that country should represent less than the threshold of 6,5 % in value of the total imports from GSP beneficiary countries into the Union, as an average during the last three consecutive years.

(3)

Where the list of GSP beneficiary countries is amended, Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to amend Annex VII in order to review the vulnerability threshold defined in point 1(b) of Annex VII so as to maintain proportionally the same weight of the vulnerability threshold in terms of determining whether countries are considered vulnerable, irrespective of amendments of the list of GSP beneficiary countries..In accordance with Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, the weight of the vulnerability threshold is the value of the total imports into the Union of the products listed in Annex IX from all GSP beneficiary countries taken as an average.

(4)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/602 (2) changed the vulnerability threshold from 2 % to 6,5 % applicable as of 1 January 2015.

(5)

The list of GSP beneficiaries in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 has been substantially amended, as twenty-one countries have been removed, between the last review of the vulnerability threshold in 2015 and 1 January 2019. It is therefore necessary to amend the vulnerability threshold set out in point 1(b) of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.

(6)

As a result of the amendments to the list of countries in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 between the last amendment of the vulnerability criterion in 2015 and 1 January 2019, the total imports into the Union of the products listed in Annex IX from all GSP beneficiary countries taken as an average would decrease by 12,2 %. Therefore, an increase of the vulnerability threshold from 6,5 % to 7,4 % as from 1 January 2019 would maintain proportionally the same weight of the vulnerability threshold as laid down in Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012.

(7)

To take into account the effective dates of the amendments to the list of countries in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 and its impact on the vulnerability of beneficiary countries, this threshold shall be effective from 1 January 2019,

(1)

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 lists the participants in the Kimberley Process certification scheme and their duly appointed competent authorities.

(2)

The addresses of the competent authorities of several participants in the Kimberley Process require an update.

(3)

In September 2019, Kimberley Process participants received a notification from the People’s Republic of China that Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China will formally implement the Kimberley Process certification scheme as of 1 October 2019.

(4)

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly. In order for Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China to implement the Kimberley Process certification scheme in relation to the Union as soon as possible, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.

(2)

Regular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

(1)

On 2 October 2019, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued the arbitration decision in European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316/ARB. The arbitration decision entitled the United States of America (USA) to request an authorisation to impose countermeasures at a level not exceeding USD 7,5 billion annually in response to Union subsidies to Airbus. On 18 October 2019, the USA imposed a 25 % ad valorem import duty on, among others, still wines exported to the USA by Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. This exceptional, inequitable and unpredictable situation is having a severe and detrimental impact on the global trade of all Union wines. The USA have further threatened to apply 100 % ad valorem import duties on French sparkling wines in response to the French Digital Services Tax (GAFA tax).

(2)

The import duties imposed by the USA are having a direct and severe impact on the Union wine trade on the USA market, which is the Union’s largest export market for agricultural products, and for wine in particular, both in terms of value and volume of exports. In 2018, Union wine exports to the USA totalled 6,5 million hectolitres, accounting for EUR 4 billion. Union wine exports to the USA typically represents between 30 and 40 % of the global Union wine export value.

(3)

The increased import duties imposed by the USA are having a damaging effect on all Union wine, not only on still wines originating from the four Member States that are subject to the increased import duties. The reputation and trade of all Union wine present in the USA market is adversely impacted as a result. The reputation of wine is determined not only by its quality but also by its price and the perceived price-quality ratio. This is particularly the case for the lower to middle range priced wines, which, in absolute terms, are impacted more by a 25 % import duty than more expensive wines that are purchased by connoisseurs for whom a price increase does not operate as a deterrent. Union wines compete in the USA market with wines from other origins such as South America, Australia or South Africa. In the light of such fierce and intense competition, perception of overall price levels plays a significant role. Where the consumer is aware that the price of wine from certain origins within the Union is subject to an increased import duty, this will have a negative impact on the overall perception of the price level of Union wines and thus divert consumer demand to products of other origins. In the light of the identified resulting market conditions and decrease in overall returns to producers, immediate measures to address the effects of the import duties are warranted covering all wines originating in all Member States and not only in those directly targeted by the import duties.

(4)

From a market stability perspective, the import duty regime imposed by the USA does not represent an isolated national measure with effects limited to the trade with the USA. The world wine market is a global market on which single measures taken by important economic players such as the USA have far-reaching repercussions affecting the international trade in wine as a whole. Any negative change in the conditions in a major destination market for Union wines, such as the USA, inevitably affects other markets since the products that cannot be sold in the USA, having become too expensive, need to be diverted elsewhere. Consequently, consumers in those other markets, being well aware of the market conditions, will exert additional pressure on prices and competition will also be much fiercer than normal. The current import duties imposed by the USA are therefore likely to cause stagnation in Union wine exports worldwide. Reports from the wine sector have shown that significant orders of French wines on the USA market have already been cancelled.

(5)

The Union wine market has been subject to aggravating conditions throughout 2019 and wine stocks are at their highest level since 2009. This development is due primarily to a combination of the record harvest in 2018 and decreasing wine consumption in the Union. If the wines affected by the import duties imposed by the USA are not sold on the export markets outside the Union, this will only serve to amplify the urgency and seriousness of the situation in the Union market. Furthermore, the urgency of the situation is aggravated by the timing of the application of the import duty tariffs. The tariffs are applicable from 18 October 2019, which falls right in the middle of the 2019 wine harvest and production campaign and just before the end of year festive season; two of the most important sale periods of the year for the Union wine sector. Against this background, it is therefore necessary to take immediate measures to address the situation.

(6)

Among the support measures in the wine sector set out in Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, only the promotion measure under Article 45(1)(b) of that Regulation is directly targeted on promoting Union wines in third countries in order to improve their competitiveness. Over the years, the promotion measure has proved remarkably effective to conquer and consolidate markets in third countries. It proved to be the most effective tool to support Union wines on third country markets by enhancing their reputation and raising awareness on their quality. The international wine market is a global market and any promotion operation of Union wine on third country markets is beneficial to all Union wines. It opens opportunities for operators who will subsequently enter the market in question with other Union wines. The individual promotions have a “multiplier” effect on sales as they cover whole ranges of wines or entire winemaking regions and not just one individual brand or type of wine. It is therefore essential to continue, launch and intensify promotion activities in all markets in order to find outlets for the wines that will not be sold on the USA market and to preserve the reputation of Union wines in those other markets as well as to counter pressure on prices.

(7)

Therefore, to help operators respond to the current exceptional circumstances in export markets all over the world following the import duty regime imposed by the USA and address this unpredictable and precarious situation, it is appropriate to allow further flexibility in implementing the promotion measure under Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. It is therefore necessary, as an exceptional measure, to provide for a derogation from Article 45(3) of that Regulation and temporarily increase the maximum Union contribution to promotion measures under Article 45(1)(b) of that Regulation from 50 % to 60 % of the eligible expenditure.

(8)

This measure is necessary because operators will inevitably incur additional costs arising from the need to divert promotions to different countries or to organise new promotions in other countries, all of which will need to be executed in urgency to ensure stocks are sold. Increasing the Union contribution for promotion measures to 60 % and consequently decreasing the beneficiary’s contribution would allow beneficiaries to undertake more ambitious actions and preserve hard-won positions on the foreign markets. It will also provide an incentive to new operators to apply for support for promotion operations in circumstances they might not otherwise have done were the Union contribution to remain at 50 %, in particular as concerns those operators who previously could not afford to do so. Reducing their financial burden to 40 % will help them to cope with the impact of the import duties imposed by the USA.

(9)

The flexibility introduced by increasing the Union contribution represents a form of financial support, which, however, does not require additional Union financing since the budgetary limits for the national support programmes in the wine sector laid down in Annex VI to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 continue to apply. Member States may thus decide to allocate higher amounts to the promotion measure only within the yearly budget provided for in Annex VI to that Regulation. The measure is aimed, therefore, at providing support to the sector in the given unstable market situation without having to mobilise additional funds in the first place. Furthermore, this flexibility should not have a negative impact on the budget allocated to other support measures under that Regulation, since some of the measures, such as restructuring and conversion of vineyards, are becoming less relevant and less budget consuming for Member States. In addition, the statistics of the recent years show an underspending of the maximum budget available per Member State.

(10)

The import duties imposed by the USA and the resulting difficulties for the trade in Union wine constitute a specific problem within the meaning of Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. This specific problem cannot be addressed by measures taken pursuant to Article 219 or 220 of that Regulation. On the one hand, it is not linked to an already existing market disturbance since the import duties imposed by the USA are currently severely impacting the reputation of Union wine and are likely to cause a rapid deterioration of wine market conditions in the future if the situation is not addressed immediately. This specific problem is currently also not linked to a sufficiently specific threat of a market disturbance that is likely to continue in its current form since the import duty tariffs by the USA are expected to change over time and as such are likely to have further unpredictable effects on the global wine market. On the other hand, this specific problem is also not linked to measures for combating the spread of diseases of animals or a loss of consumer confidence due to public, animal or plant health risks as required by Article 220 of that Regulation.

(11)

Furthermore, this measure together with an increased flexibility in the implementation of the promotion measure set out in Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, is a part of a series of measures intended to help at Union level operators affected by the import duties imposed on Union wines by the USA. However, among those measures, this measure is the only one providing some financial relief that is necessary address the situation of operators affected by the import duties imposed by the USA as a result of income losses and increased expenses triggered by the need to find new markets for their wines.

(12)

The measure should be strictly limited to what is necessary to address the current exceptional circumstances in export markets both as regards the scope and the period of application.

(13)

The Union contribution can only be granted by Member States on the basis of an application which is selected under the promotion measure set out in Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. It should be available to all operators selected under the measure in disregard of the specific wine category or the origin of Union wine, given the fact that the application of the import duty tariffs by the USA is damaging to all Union wine exports. In this context, it is necessary to adopt measures to improve the export competitiveness of all Union wines. To ensure that, the present emergency measure should thus apply to all beneficiaries regardless of the markets targeted in their operations. It should be equally available to the operators envisaging to target the USA market but also the ones who would direct their efforts to another third country market in the current exceptional circumstances on the world wine market. In addition, it would be very difficult to separate within one promotion operation the actions concerning still wines from the actions concerning other wines since the promotion operations are typically designed to promote a whole range of products and not just a specific category. Many promotion campaigns concern all wines of a region or a broad variety of wines sold by a given operator. To separate the actions concerning other wines from the actions concerning still wines within a promotion campaign would represent a heavy administrative burden and would undermine the positive effects of the promotion operation.

(14)

The emergency measure should be limited to a maximum period of 12 months starting from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. This period is necessary to allow promotion campaigns to be set up. The process includes several administrative steps such as changes to the national support programmes, the preparation and launch of calls for submissions, the selection of applications and conclusion of contracts, and it typically lasts more than 6 months Therefore, in order for the derogation to be implemented efficiently, the duration of the derogation should be 12 months. Applications selected after the 12 month period should not benefit from the increased Union contribution.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

(1)

On 2 October 2019, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued the arbitration decision in European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316/ARB. The arbitration decision entitled the United States of America (USA) to request an authorisation to impose countermeasures at a level not exceeding USD 7,5 billion annually in response to Union subsidies to Airbus. On 18 October 2019, the USA imposed a 25 % ad valorem import duty on, among others, still wines exported to the USA by Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. This exceptional, inequitable and unpredictable situation is having a severe and detrimental impact on the global trade of all Union wines. The USA have further threatened to apply 100 % ad valorem import duties on French sparkling wines in response to the French Digital Services Tax (GAFA tax).

(2)

The import duties imposed by the USA are having a direct and severe impact on the Union wine trade on the USA market, which is the Union’s largest export market for agricultural products, and for wine in particular, both in terms of value and volume of exports. In 2018, Union wine exports to the USA totalled 6,5 million hectolitres, accounting for EUR 4 billion. Union wine exports to the USA typically represent between 30 % and 40 % of the global Union wine export value.

(3)

The increased import duties imposed by the USA are having a damaging effect on all Union wine, not only on still wines originating from the four Member States that are subject to the increased import duties. The reputation and trade of all Union wine present in the USA market is adversely impacted as a result. The reputation of a wine is determined not only by its quality but also by its price and the perceived price-quality ratio. This is particularly the case for the lower to middle range priced wines, which, in absolute terms, are impacted more by a 25 % import duty than more expensive wines that are purchased by connoisseurs for whom a price increase does not operate as a deterrent. Union wines compete in the USA market with wines from other origins such as South America, Australia or South Africa. In the light of such fierce and intense competition, perception of overall price levels plays a significant role. Where the consumer is aware that the price of wine from certain origins within the Union is subject to an increased import duty this will have a negative impact on the overall perception of the price level of Union wines and thus divert consumer demand to products of other origins. In the light of the identified resulting market conditions and decrease in overall returns to producers, immediate measures to address the effects of the import duties are therefore warranted covering all wines originating in all Member States and not only in those directly targeted by the import duties.

(4)

From a market stability perspective, the import duty regime imposed by the USA does not represent an isolated national measure with effects limited to trade with the USA. The world wine market is a global market on which single measures taken by important economic players such as the USA have far-reaching repercussions affecting the international trade in wine as a whole. Any negative change in the conditions in a major destination market for Union wines, such as the USA, inevitably affects other markets since the products that cannot be sold in the USA, having become too expensive, need to be diverted elsewhere. Consequently, consumers in those other markets, being well aware of the market conditions, will exert additional pressure on prices and competition will also be much fiercer than normal. The current import duties imposed by the USA are therefore likely to cause stagnation in Union wine exports worldwide. Reports from the wine sector have shown that significant orders of French wines on the USA market have already been cancelled.

(5)

The Union wine market has been subject to aggravating conditions throughout 2019 and wine stocks are at their highest level since 2009. This development is due primarily to a combination of the record harvest in 2018 and decreasing wine consumption in the Union. If the wines affected by the import duties imposed by the USA are not sold in the export markets outside the Union, this will only serve to amplify the urgency and seriousness of the situation in the Union market. Furthermore, the urgency of the situation is aggravated by the timing of the application of the import duty tariffs. The tariffs are applicable from 18 October 2019, which falls right in the middle of the 2019 wine harvest and production campaign and just before the end of year festive season; two of the most important sale periods of the year for the Union wine sector. Against this background, it is therefore necessary to take immediate measures to address the situation.

(6)

Among the support measures in the wine sector set out in Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, only the promotion measure under Article 45(1)(b) of that Regulation is directly targeted on promoting Union wines in third countries in order to improve their competitiveness. Over the years, the promotion measure has proved remarkably effective to conquer and consolidate markets in third countries. It proved to be the most effective tool to support Union wines on third country markets by enhancing their reputation and raising awareness on their quality. The international wine market is a global market and any promotion operation for Union wine on third country markets is beneficial to all Union wines. It opens opportunities for those who will subsequently enter the market in question with other Union wines. The individual promotions have a ‘multiplier’ effect on sales as they cover whole ranges of wines or entire wine-making regions and not just one individual brand or type of wine. It is therefore essential to continue, launch and intensify promotion activities in all markets in order to find outlets for the wines that will not be sold on the USA market and to preserve the reputation of Union wines in those other markets as well as to counter pressure on prices.

(7)

Therefore, to help operators respond to the current exceptional circumstances in export markets all over the world following the import duty regime imposed by the USA and address this unpredictable and precarious situation, it is appropriate to allow further flexibility in the implementation of the promotion measure under Article 45(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 by derogating from certain provisions set out in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1150 (2).

(8)

Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1150 provides that changes in respect of applicable support programmes, as referred to in Article 41(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, shall not be submitted more than twice per financial year. In order to enable Member States to quickly adapt their national support programmes and ensure legal certainty for the implementation of those modifications, it is appropriate to allow that such changes may be submitted more than twice per financial year. Member States should be able to react quickly to these exceptional circumstances and submit changes to the promotion measure as early as is considered necessary. Such flexibility would allow Member States to optimise the measures already in place, increase the number of calls and make adjustments more frequently taking account of the market situation. Furthermore, it would make it possible also for Member States who have not included the promotion measure in their national support programme to do so immediately upon entry into force of this Regulation rather than having to wait for the next deadline for amendments. With this improved flexibility for the promotion measure, more opportunities would be offered to operators including newcomers, to submit applications for support for promotion. This is intended to provide relief to the wine sector and ensure the flexibility necessary to find new outlets on international markets other than the USA.

(9)

Therefore, it is necessary to derogate from Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1150.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47 (3) was adopted following outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in holdings where poultry are kept in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, and the establishment of protection and surveillance zones by those Member States in accordance with Council Directive 2005/94/EC (4).

(2)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47 provides that the protection and surveillance zones established by the Member States listed in the Annex to that Implementing Decision, in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC, are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection and surveillance zones in that Annex.

(3)

The Annex to Implementing Decision 2020/47/EC was recently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/114 (5), following instances of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in poultry in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia and Romania that needed to be reflected in that Annex.

(4)

Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/114, Poland has notified the Commission of additional outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in holdings where poultry are kept, in the Szamotulski, Ostrowski and Iławski districts.

(5)

In addition, Slovakia has notified the Commission of an additional outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in a holding where poultry are kept in the Čadca district.

(6)

The new outbreaks in Poland and Slovakia are outside the areas currently listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47, and the competent authorities of those Member States have taken the necessary measures required in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around those new outbreaks.

(7)

The Commission has examined the measures taken by Poland and Slovakia in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC and it is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillance zones, established by the competent authorities of those Member States, are at a sufficient distance to the holdings where outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 have been confirmed.

(8)

In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Poland and Slovakia, the new protection and surveillance zones established by those Member States in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC. Therefore, the protection and surveillance zones listed for Poland and Slovakia, in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47, should be amended.

(9)

Accordingly, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47 should be amended to update regionalisation at Union level to include the new protection and surveillance zones established by Poland and Slovakia, in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC, and the duration of the restrictions applicable therein.

(10)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(11)

Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8, it is important that the amendments made to the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47 by this Decision should take effect as soon as possible.

(12)

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