(1)

Council Decision No 376/2014/EU (2) authorised Portugal to apply a reduced rate of excise duty in the autonomous region of Madeira on locally produced and consumed rum and liqueurs and in the autonomous region of the Azores on locally produced and consumed liqueurs and eaux-de-vie which may be lower than the minimum rate of excise duty set by Council Directive 92/84/EEC (3), but not more than 75 % lower than the standard national excise duty on alcohol.

(2)

In February 2019, the Portuguese authorities asked the Commission to submit a proposal for a Council Decision extending the time limit of the authorisation set out in Decision No 376/2014/EU, under the same conditions, as well as extending the geographical scope to mainland Portugal with a more limited reduction, for another seven-year period, from 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2027.

(3)

The producers in the autonomous regions of Madeira and of the Azores face difficulties in accessing markets outside those regions, and the regional and local markets are the only possible outlets to sell certain alcoholic products. Those producers face additional costs because the raw materials of agricultural origin are more expensive than under normal conditions of production, due to the small size, fragmented nature and low mechanisation of agricultural holdings. In addition, output from processing of sugarcane is lower than in other outermost regions, due to the topography, climate, soil and artisanal production. Moreover, the transport to the islands of certain raw and packaging materials which are not produced locally leads to additional costs.

(4)

In the case of the Azores, the insularity is twofold since it is a group of islands which are widely spread. Transport in those remote and insular regions further increases the additional costs. The same applies to certain necessary travels and shipments to the mainland. Additional costs are also required for the storage of finished products as local consumption does not absorb all output, especially in the case of rum production. The small size of the regional market increases per unit costs, notably through the unfavourable relationship between fixed costs and output. Finally, the producers concerned also bear extra costs generally borne by the local economies, in particular increased labour and energy costs.

(5)

Rum production has increased as a result of increased sugarcane production. While some rum is aged or used as a base for liqueurs, the unsold quantities of rum are stored at a cost which further adds to the additional costs for producers. As a result of the additional costs, producers in the autonomous regions of Madeira and of the Azores are unable to compete with producers from outside those regions due to a higher price of the final product and therefore they cannot access other markets. Access to the market in mainland Portugal with reduced rates of excise duty would address this issue.

(6)

In order to avoid severely restraining development of the autonomous regions of Madeira and of the Azores and to retain the alcohol industry and the jobs it provides in those regions, it is necessary to renew and widen the scope of the authorisation set out in Decision No 376/2014/EU.

(7)

Decision No 376/2014/EU applies until 31 December 2020. For reasons of clarity, it is necessary to adopt a new Decision authorising Portugal to apply a reduced rate of excise duty in the autonomous regions of Madeira and of the Azores.

(8)

Since the tax advantage does not go beyond what is necessary to offset additional costs, and since the volumes at stake remain modest and the tax advantage is limited to consumption in the autonomous regions of Madeira and of the Azores and mainland Portugal, the measure does not undermine the integrity and coherence of the Union legal order.

(9)

In order to allow the Commission to assess whether the conditions justifying the authorisation continue to be fulfilled, Portugal should submit a monitoring report to the Commission by 30 September 2025.

(10)

This Decision is without prejudice to the possible application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

(1)

Council Decision No 189/2014/EU (2) authorises France to apply to ‘traditional’ rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion, and sold on the French mainland a reduced rate of excise duty which may be lower than the minimum rate of excise duty set by Council Directive 92/84/EEC (3) but not more than 50 % lower than the standard national excise duty on alcohol. The reduction in excise duty is limited to an annual quota of 144 000 hectolitres of pure alcohol. That authorisation expires on 31 December 2020.

(2)

On 18 October 2019, the French authorities asked the Commission to submit a proposal for a Council Decision extending the time limit of the authorisation set out in Decision No 189/2014/EU, with a higher quota for another seven-year period, from 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2027.

(3)

Given the small scale of the local market, the distilleries of the four outermost regions covered by that authorisation can only develop their activities if they have sufficient access to the market in the French mainland, which is the main outlet for their rum (65 % of rum). The difficulty for ‘traditional’ rum to compete on the Union market is attributable to two parameters: higher production costs and higher taxes per bottle as ‘traditional’ rum is typically marketed at higher levels of alcohol strength and in bigger bottles.

(4)

Production costs of the cane-sugar-rum value chain in the four outermost regions are higher than in other regions of the world. In particular, the remoteness, difficult topography and climate of those four outermost regions significantly impact the cost of ingredients and production. In addition, labour costs are higher than those in neighbouring countries as French social legislation is applicable in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion. Those outermost regions are also subject to Union environment and safety standards, which entail important investments and costs which are not directly related to productivity, even if part of those investments is co-financed by Union structural funds. Furthermore, distilleries of those outermost regions are smaller than distilleries of international groups. This generates higher production costs per unit of output.

(5)

‘Traditional’ rum sold on the French mainland is typically marketed in bigger bottles (36 % of rum is sold in bottles containing 1 litre) and at higher levels of alcohol (ranging from 40° to 59°) than competing rum-based products, which are typically marketed in bottles of 0,7 litre at 37,5°. The higher levels of alcohol content trigger in turn higher excise duties, a higher ‘cotisation sur les boissons alcooliques’ (also known as ‘vignette sécurité sociale’) (VSS) and, in addition, a higher value added tax (VAT) per litre of rum sold. Thus, a reduced rate of excise duty, which is not more than 50 % lower than the standard national excise duty on alcohol, remains proportionate to the cumulative additional costs resulting from the higher production costs and higher excise duty, VSS and VAT.

(6)

The extra costs stemming from the decade-long marketing practice of selling ‘traditional’ rum at higher levels of alcohol and, thus, triggering higher taxes should therefore also be taken into account.

(7)

The fiscal advantage covering both the harmonised excise duties and the VSS to be authorised needs to remain proportionate so as not to undermine the integrity and the coherence of the Union legal order, including safeguarding undistorted competition in the internal market and state aid policies.

(8)

The fiscal advantage has not, to date, impacted the internal market as the market share of ‘traditional’ rum has decreased by 11 % in recent years, due to the increasing consumption of rum-based alcoholic drinks.

(9)

In order to avoid severely restraining the economic development of the French outermost regions and to ensure the continuation of the cane-sugar-rum industry and the jobs it provides in the French outermost regions, it is necessary to renew and increase the annual quota of the authorisation set out in Decision No 189/2014/EU.

(10)

In order to ensure that this Decision does not undermine the internal market, the maximum quantities of rum originating in the French overseas departments eligible for the measure should be fixed at 153 000 hectolitres of pure alcohol per annum.

(11)

Since the fiscal advantage does not go beyond what is necessary to offset additional costs, and since the volumes at stake remain modest and the fiscal advantage limited to consumption on the French mainland, the measure does not undermine the integrity and coherence of the Union legal order.

(12)

In order to allow the Commission to assess whether the conditions justifying the authorisation continue to be fulfilled, France should submit a monitoring report to the Commission by 30 September 2025.

(13)

This Decision is without prejudice to the possible application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

(1)

Pursuant to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Council, taking into account the structural social and economic constraints of the outermost regions, including their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and economic dependence on a few products, is to adopt specific measures aimed, in particular, at laying down the conditions of application of the Treaties to those regions, including common policies.

(2)

Specific measures should therefore be adopted in order to establish the conditions for applying the TFEU to those regions. Such measures are to take account of the special characteristics and constraints of those regions, without undermining the integrity and coherence of the Union legal order, including the internal market and common policies.

(3)

The Canary Islands’ economic dependence on the services sector and in particular tourism, as measured in the region’s GDP share linked to that sector, constitutes a significant constraint. That sector plays a significantly larger role in the economy of the Canary Islands than the industry sector.

(4)

The combination of isolation and insularity inherent in an archipelago hinders the free movement of persons, goods and services and it is the second biggest constraint facing the Canary Islands. The location of the islands increases their dependence on air transport and maritime transport. Transport to, from and on those remote and insular islands further increases production costs for local industries. Production costs are greater because those modes of transport are less efficient and more expensive than road or rail.

(5)

As a further consequence of this isolation, higher production costs result from the islands’ dependence on importing raw materials and energy, the obligation to build up stocks and difficulties affecting the supply of production equipment.

(6)

The small size of the market and the low level of export activity, the geographical fragmentation of the archipelago, and the obligation to maintain diversified small production lines in order to meet the requirements of a small market restrict the opportunities for economies of scale.

(7)

It is, in many cases, more difficult or more expensive in the Canary islands to obtain specialised services and maintenance, and training for managers and technicians, or to subcontract or promote business expansion beyond the regional market. The narrow range of distribution methods also results in overstocking.

(8)

As regards the environment, the disposal of industrial waste and the treatment of toxic waste give rise to higher environmental costs. Those costs are higher because there are no recycling plants, other than for certain products, and waste has to be transported to be treated outside the Canary Islands.

(9)

The tax known as ‘Arbitrio sobre Importaciones y Entregas de Mercancías en las Islas Canarias’ (‘AIEM tax’) is serving the objective of autonomous development of the Canary Islands’ industrial production sectors and of diversifying the Canary Islands’ economy.

(10)

Council Decision 2002/546/EC (2), adopted pursuant to Article 299 of the EC Treaty, initially authorised Spain to apply exemptions from or reductions in the AIEM tax until 31 December 2011 to certain products produced locally in the Canary Islands. The Annex to that Decision contained a list of products to which tax exemptions and reductions could be applied. The difference between the taxation of locally produced products and the taxation of other products could not exceed 5, 15 or 25 percentage points, depending on the product.

(11)

Council Decision No 895/2011/EU (3) amended Decision 2002/546/EC, extending its period of application until 31 December 2013.

(12)

Council Decision No 1413/2013/EU (4) further amended Decision 2002/546/EC, extending its period of application until 30 June 2014.

(13)

Council Decision No 377/2014/EU (5) authorised Spain to apply exemptions from or reductions in the AIEM tax until 31 December 2020 to certain products produced locally in the Canary Islands. The Annex to that Decision contains a list of products to which the tax exemptions or reductions can be applied.

(14)

A careful examination of the situation confirms that it is necessary to grant Spain’s request of renewing the authorisation.

(15)

The maximum differential rate, which may be applied to the industrial products in question, should not exceed 15 %. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Spanish authorities should be able to decide upon the appropriate percentage for each product. The authorised tax differential should not exceed the proven additional costs. Nevertheless, that fiscal advantage should apply subject to a limit of EUR 150 million per annum, except in duly justifiable cases.

(16)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and in order to ensure flexibility, the Spanish authorities should be allowed to amend the list of products and their authorised tax differential to reflect the actual level of additional costs incurred in the production of such products in the Canary Islands. In that context, it should be possible for the Spanish authorities to apply lower differential rates and to establish a minimum tax for specific products where necessary, provided that any amendment is in line with the objectives of Article 349 TFEU. Any amendment of the list of products should be based on the following eligibility criteria: that local production exists and its share of the local market accounts for at least 5 %; that significant importation of goods (including from mainland Spain and other Member States) exists which could jeopardise the continuation of local production, and its share of the local market accounts for at least 10 %; and that additional costs exist which increase the cost price of local production in comparison with products produced elsewhere, compromising the competitiveness of products produced locally.

(17)

The Spanish authorities should be allowed to derogate from the market share thresholds in duly justified circumstances, which include: labour-intensive production; production which is otherwise of strategic importance for local development; production subject to periodical fluctuations; production located in particularly disadvantaged areas; and production of medical products and personal protective equipment required to address health crises. It should be possible for the Spanish authorities to amend the list of products and their authorised tax differential, provided that any amendment is in line with the objectives of Article 349 TFEU.

(18)

The objective of promoting the socioeconomic development of the Canary Islands is reflected at national level in the purpose of the AIEM tax and the allocation of the revenue it generates. The incorporation of the revenue from the AIEM tax in the resources of the Canary Islands’ economic and tax system and the use of that revenue for an economic and social development strategy involving the promotion of local activities are legal obligations.

(19)

The exemptions from or reductions in the AIEM tax should apply for seven years. In order to allow the Commission to assess whether the conditions justifying the authorisation continue to be fulfilled, the Spanish authorities should submit a monitoring report to the Commission by 30 September 2025.

(20)

This Decision is without prejudice to the possible application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU,

(1)

Council Decision No 940/2014/EU (2) authorises the French authorities to apply exemptions or reductions to dock dues in the French outermost regions for products listed in the Annex to that Decision that are produced locally in those outermost regions. The maximum authorised tax differential is 10, 20 or 30 percentage points, depending on the products and the overseas department in question. Decision No 940/2014/EU applies until 31 December 2020.

(2)

France is of the view that the competitive disadvantages suffered by the French outermost regions persist, and has submitted a request to the Commission for a system of differentiated taxation similar to the current system to be maintained beyond 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2027.

(3)

However, analysing the lists of the products to which France wishes to apply differentiated taxation is a lengthy process that requires the verification of the reasons for the differentiated taxation and its proportionality for each product, so as to ensure that the differentiated taxation does not undermine the integrity and coherence of the Union legal order, including the integrity and coherence of the internal market and common policies.

(4)

The crisis caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic has seriously delayed the work carried out by the French authorities to collect all the information necessary for that verification. Consequently, that work has not yet been completed.

(5)

The failure to adopt a proposal before 1 January 2021 might create a legal vacuum, as it would rule out the application of any differentiated taxation in the French outermost regions after 1 January 2021.

(6)

An additional period of six months is therefore required to make it possible to complete the verification work under way and to give the Commission time to present a balanced proposal that takes account of the various interests at stake.

(7)

Decision No 940/2014/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2018/848 and in particular Part I of Annex II thereto, lays down certain requirements with regard to the use of in-conversion and non-organic plant reproductive material.

(2)

In view of the phasing out of the derogations from the use of organic plant reproductive material laid down in Article 53 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, it is important to increase the production and placing on the market of organic and in-conversion plant reproductive material.

(3)

In accordance with Article 10(4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, plant reproductive material may be marketed as ‘in-conversion’ when a conversion period of at least 12 months is respected. Pursuant to Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 Member States are to ensure that a regularly updated database is established for the listing of the organic and in-conversion plant reproductive material, excluding seedlings but including seed potatoes, which is available in their territories. Moreover, Article 26(2) requires Member States to have in place systems that allow operators that market organic or in-conversion plant reproductive material and that are able to supply them in sufficient quantities and within a reasonable period, to make public on a voluntary basis, free of charge, together with their names and contact details, information on the organic and in-conversion plant reproductive material, such as plant reproductive material of organic heterogeneous material or of organic varieties suitable for organic production, excluding seedlings but including seed potatoes, which is available with the quantity in weight of that material and the period of the year of its availability. However, Article 26(5) provides that Member States may continue to use relevant information systems that are already in existence.

(4)

It is therefore important when organic plant reproductive material is not sufficiently available and such unavailability is demonstrated through records collected in the above-mentioned database and systems, to prioritise the use of in-conversion plant reproductive material over non-organic plant reproductive material. In addition, in accordance with Article 6(i) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, the use of self-produced organic and in-conversion plant reproductive material should be allowed.

(5)

Taking into account the current divergent practices in Member States, it is also of particular importance to harmonise the specific criteria and conditions for issuing authorisations to use non-organic plant reproductive material where organic and in-conversion plant reproductive material is not available in sufficient quality or quantity. Such harmonisation should permit to avoid potential unfair competition in organic production and ensure that certain precautionary provisions are applied to plant reproductive material and, in case of prescribed phyto-sanitary treatments, it should be subject where appropriate to a period of conversion of the parcel as provided in points 1.7.3 and 1.7.4 of Part I of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/848.

(6)

Despite the efforts undertaken by operators involved in the production of organic plant reproductive material, there are still many species, subspecies or varieties for which organic and in-conversion plant reproductive material is not available and for which it is necessary to simplify the process of authorisations by reducing the administrative burden without jeopardising the organic nature of the products. Therefore, and in order to reduce the number of requests for individual authorisations, it is appropriate to provide for annual national general authorisations for species, subspecies or varieties, subject to certain conditions, and for the adoption of national lists of species or subspecies for which appropriate varieties of organic or in-conversion plant reproductive material are available in sufficient quantity. That approach should permit to limit the recourse to individual authorisations. In addition, those national lists constitute relevant information, which is expected to increase knowledge and certainty in the sector of organic plant reproductive material and thus to facilitate the further development both in this highly specialised production sector and in the use of organic plant reproductive material.

(7)

Part I of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

In the interest of clarity and legal certainty, this Regulation should apply from the date of application of Regulation (EU) 2018/848,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 an application was submitted for the authorisation of iron chelate of lysine and glutamic acid. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of that Regulation.

(3)

That application concerns the authorisation of iron chelate of lysine and glutamic acid as a feed additive for all animal species to be classified in the additive category ‘nutritional additives’.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinions of 4 July 2019 (2) and 25 May 2020 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, iron chelate of lysine and glutamic acid does not have an adverse effect on animal health and consumer safety. It also concluded that the additive is an eye irritant, skin and respiratory sensitizer, and stated a risk for the users of the additive upon inhalation. Therefore, the Commission considers that appropriate protective measures should be taken to prevent adverse effects on human health, in particular as regards the users of the additive. The Authority also concluded that that the additive does not pose an additional risk for the environment compared to other authorised compounds of iron and that it is an efficacious source of iron for all animal species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of the additive shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are, subject to the relevant protective measures for the users of the additive, satisfied. Accordingly, the use of the additive should be authorised.

(6)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 an application was submitted for the authorisation of L-glutamine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum NITE BP-02524 as a feed additive for all animal species. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

The application concerns the authorisation of L-glutamine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum NITE BP-02524 as a feed additive for all animal species to be classified in the additive category ‘nutritional additives’, functional group ‘amino acids, their salts and analogues’, and in the additive category ‘sensory additives’, functional group ‘flavouring compounds’.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 18 March 2020 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, L-glutamine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum NITE BP-02524 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment. The Authority also concluded that the additive is an efficacious source of glutamine for all animal species and that for the supplemental L-glutamine to be fully efficacious in ruminants, it should be protected against degradation in the rumen.

(5)

As regards the use as flavouring, the Authority states that no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary when used at the recommended dose. The use of L-glutamine as flavouring compound is not authorised in water for drinking. At the recommended dose, L-glutamine as a flavouring compound is unlikely to pose any concern. The fact that the use of the L-glutamine is not authorised as flavouring in water for drinking does not preclude its use in compound feed which is administered via water. Restrictions and conditions should be provided for to allow a better control of L-glutamine as a flavouring compound. For L-glutamine, recommended contents should be indicated on the label of the additive. Where such contents are exceeded, certain information should be indicated on the label of premixtures.

(6)

The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the reports on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(7)

The assessment of L-glutamine produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum NITE BP-02524 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this additive should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(8)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of L-valine. The application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of that Regulation.

(3)

The application concerns the authorisation of L-valine produced by Escherichia coli KCCM 80159 as a feed additive for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category ‘nutritional additives’, functional group ‘amino acids, their salts and analogues’.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 18 March 2020 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, L-valine produced by Escherichia coli KCCM 80159 when supplemented to diets in appropriate amounts does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment. Further, the Authority concluded that it is considered an efficacious source of the essential amino acid L-valine for animal nutrition and that in order to be efficacious in ruminants, the additive should be protected against degradation in the rumen. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the reports on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of L-valine produced by Escherichia coli KCCM 80159 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of this substance should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 applications were submitted for the authorisation of L-lysine monohydrochloride produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum DSM 32932 and L-lysine sulphate produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KFCC 11043. The applications were accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of that Regulation.

(3)

The applications concern the authorisation of L-lysine monohydrochloride produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum DSM 32932 and L-lysine sulphate produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KFCC 11043 as feed additives for all animal species, to be classified in the additive category ‘nutritional additives’, functional group ‘amino acids, their salts and analogues’.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 19 March 2020 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, L-lysine monohydrochloride produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum DSM 32932 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer safety or the environment. The Authority stated a risk for the users as it should be considered as an eye irritant. Therefore, the Commission considers that appropriate protective measures should be taken to prevent adverse effects on human health, in particular as regards the users of the additive. In its opinion of 1 July 2020 (3), the Authority concluded that, under the proposed conditions of use, L-lysine sulphate produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KFCC 11043 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment. The Authority also concluded that both additives are efficacious sources of the amino acid L-lysine for all animal species and that in order to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, the additives should be protected against degradation in the rumen. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the reports on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of L-lysine monohydrochloride produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum DSM 32932 and of L-lysine sulphate produced by Corynebacterium glutamicum KFCC 11043 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of these substances should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 an application was submitted for the authorisation of a preparation of 6-phytase. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

The application concerns the authorisation of a preparation of 6-phytase produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 12056 as a feed additive for laying hens and other laying birds to be classified in the additive category ‘zootechnical additives’ and in the functional group ‘digestibility enhancers’.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 7 May 2020 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparation of 6-phytase produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 12056 does not have an adverse effect on the health of laying hens and other laying birds, consumer safety or the environment. It was also concluded that the additive should be considered as a potential respiratory sensitiser. Therefore, the Commission considers that appropriate protective measures should be taken to prevent adverse effects on human health, in particular as regards the users of the additive. The Authority concluded that the additive is efficacious as a zootechnical additive in improving the digestibility of the diets in laying hens and other laying birds. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of the preparation of 6-phytase produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 12056 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of monosodium glutamate produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80188. This application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

The application concerns the authorisation of monosodium glutamate produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80188 as a feed additive for all animal species. The applicant requested this additive to be classified in the additive category ‘sensory additives’.

(4)

The applicant requested the feed additive to be authorised for use also in water for drinking. However, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 does not allow the authorisation of ‘flavouring compounds’ for use in water for drinking. Therefore, the use of monosodium glutamate produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80188 in water for drinking should not be allowed. The fact that the additive is not authorised for use as a flavouring in water for drinking does not preclude its use in compound feed administered via water.

(5)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 19 March 2020 (2) that, under the proposed conditions of use monosodium glutamate produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80188 does not have adverse effects on animal health, consumer health or the environment. The Authority concluded in the opinion that the additive is not toxic by inhalation, not irritant to skin or eyes and is not a dermal sensitiser. The Authority also concluded, that the effect of monosodium glutamate for increasing the taste of food is well proven, and therefore, no further demonstration of its efficacy in feed is necessary. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the methods of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(6)

The assessment of monosodium glutamate produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80188 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that substance should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(7)

Restrictions and conditions should be provided for to allow better control. In particular, a recommended content should be indicated on the label of the feed additive. Where such content is exceeded, certain information should be indicated on the label of premixtures.

(8)

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

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/862 (2) has fixed the adjustment rate for direct payments pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in respect of the calendar year 2020. That adjustment rate has been set based on the information available in the context of the 2021 Draft Budget, in particular taking into account an amount of financial discipline of EUR 487,6 million for the reserve for crises in the agricultural sector referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.

(2)

That adjustment rate also took into account the need to apply financial discipline in order to respect the annual ceilings referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, as provided for in Article 26(1) of that Regulation.

(3)

While the need for financial discipline remains at EUR 487,6 million for the reserve for crises in the agricultural sector, the preliminary estimates available in relation to the upcoming Commission Amending Letter No 1 to the 2021 Draft Budget covering forecasts for direct payments and market related expenditure, show nevertheless the need to adapt the rate of financial discipline set in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/862.

(4)

Consequently, based on the new information in possession of the Commission, it is appropriate to adapt the adjustment rate in accordance with Article 26(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 before 1 December of the calendar year in respect of which the adjustment rate applies.

(5)

The amended proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (3) has not yet been adopted. Therefore, as a precautionary measure and considering the already very advanced stage of the decision-making procedure for the adoption of that Regulation, the net balance available for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund expenditure for financial year 2021 amounting to EUR 40 368,0 million (sub-ceiling as set out in the European Council conclusions of 21 July 2020, adjusted for transfers notified by Member States in allocations between the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and direct payments), should be used for the calculation of the adjustment rate.

(6)

As a general rule, farmers submitting an aid application for direct payments for one calendar year (N) are paid within a fixed payment period falling within the financial year (N+1). However, Member States may make late payments to farmers beyond that payment period, within certain limits. Such late payments may be made in a subsequent financial year. When financial discipline is applied for a given calendar year, the adjustment rate should not be applied to payments for which aid applications have been submitted in calendar years other than the calendar year for which the financial discipline applies. Therefore, in order to ensure equal treatment of farmers, it is appropriate to provide that the adjustment rate is to be applied only to payments for which aid applications have been submitted in the calendar year for which the financial discipline is applied, irrespectively of when the payment to farmers is made.

(7)

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) provides that the adjustment rate applied to direct payments determined in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 is to apply only to direct payments in excess of EUR 2 000 to be granted to farmers in the corresponding calendar year. Furthermore, Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 provides that, as a result of the gradual introduction of direct payments, the adjustment rate is to apply to Croatia only from 1 January 2022. The adjustment rate to be determined by this Regulation should therefore not apply to payments to farmers in that Member State.

(8)

The adapted adjustment rate should be taken into account for the calculation of all payments to be granted to a farmer for an aid application submitted in respect of the calendar year 2020. For the sake of clarity, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/862 should therefore be repealed.

(9)

In order to ensure that the adapted adjustment rate is applicable as from the date on which the payments to farmers are to start in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, this Regulation should apply from 1 December 2020,

(1)

Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2285 of 6 December 2017 amending the user’s guide setting out the steps needed to participate in EMAS, under Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) (2) defines in paragraph 2.4.3 of Annex I the requirements for the utilisation of a sampling method for verification of multisite organisations.

(2)

Paragraph 2.4.3.3(a) of the user’s guide, contained in Annex I to Decision (EU) 2017/2285, defines sectors in which the use of a sampling method for the verification of multisite organisations is allowed (Table 9).

(3)

Paragraph 2.4.3.3(b) of the user’s guide defines sectors in which the use of a sampling method for the verification of multisite organisations can be allowed in pilot projects (Table 10) and specifies that, after a pilot project and based on the pilot project evaluation, the EMAS Committee may recommend to include the sector in the list of sectors in which the use of a sampling method is allowed (Table 9).

(4)

Two pilot projects in sectors listed in Table 10 have been carried out in Germany: one project in the retail sector (NACE Code 47.1) and one project for residential care activities (NACE Code 87) and social work without accommodation (NACE Code 88). An evaluation of these pilot projects was presented to the EMAS Committee.

(5)

Based on the pilot project evaluation, the EMAS Committee recommended to include these sectors in the list of sectors in which the use of a sampling method for the verification of multisite organisations is allowed (Table 9),

(1)

Under Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, the EU Ecolabel may be awarded to those products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 provides that specific EU Ecolabel criteria are to be established according to product groups.

(3)

Commission Decision 2012/481/EU (2) established the criteria and related assessment and verification requirements for the product group ‘printed paper’. The period of validity of those criteria and requirements has been extended to 31 December 2020 by Commission Decision (EU) 2018/1590 (3).

(4)

Commission Decision 2014/256/EU (4) established criteria and related assessment and verification requirements for the product group ‘converted paper products’. The period of validity of those criteria and requirements has been extended to 31 December 2020 by Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1525 (5).

(5)

In order to better reflect best practice in the market for these product groups and to take account of innovations introduced in the intervening period, it is appropriate to establish a new set of criteria for printed paper, stationery paper, and paper carrier bag products.

(6)

The EU Ecolabel Fitness check Report (6) of 30 June 2017, reviewing the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 concluded on the need to develop a more strategic approach for the EU Ecolabel, including the bundling of closely related product groups where appropriate.

(7)

In line with those conclusions and after consulting the European Union Ecolabelling Board it is appropriate to revise the criteria for the product groups ‘printed paper’ and ‘converted paper products’, taking into consideration the current success, stakeholders' interest in the product and potential future windows of opportunity for increased uptake and market`s demand on sustainable products.

(8)

Since the two product groups ‘printed paper’ and ‘converted paper products’ are closely related and their criteria will overlap, it is appropriate to adopt a single decision with one Annex for both product groups.

(9)

The product group name should be modified to ‘printed paper, stationery paper, and paper carrier bag products’ to better reflect product functionality and ensure the clarity of the products included in the scope. This should also increase the visibility of the schemes for market participants and reduce the administrative burden for national authorities.

(10)

In addition, in line with the review, certain modifications should be made to the definition of the product group ‘printed paper, stationery paper, and paper carrier bag products’, notably to make a clearer distinction between different type of products.

(11)

The New Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe (7) adopted on 11 March 2020 stipulates that the durability, recyclability and recycled content requirements are to be more systematically included in the EU Ecolabel criteria.

(12)

The revised EU Ecolabel criteria for printed paper, stationery paper, and paper carrier bag products should aim, in particular, at using paper-based products manufactured in a more sustainable way and sourced from sustainably managed forests or recycled materials. The new criteria should be based on a life cycle analysis approach and aim to promote energy efficient manufacturing processes and to reduce emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that contribute to the photochemical oxidation, human toxicity, abiotic depletion, eutrophication, acidification, and climate change. The revised criteria should restrict the use of hazardous substances, address emissions generated during the printing process, reduce the quantity of paper waste generated in a process and increase product recyclability, which contributes to facilitate the transition to a more circular economy.

(13)

The new criteria and related assessment and verification requirements for each product group should remain valid until 31 December 2028, taking into account the innovation cycle for the two product groups.

(14)

For reasons of legal certainty, Decisions 2012/481/EU and 2014/256/EU should be repealed.

(15)

A transitional period should be allowed for producers whose products have been awarded the EU Ecolabel for printed paper products, or converted paper products, on the basis of the criteria set out in Decision 2012/481/EU or Decision 2014/256/EU respectively, so that they have sufficient time to adapt their products to comply with the new criteria and requirements. For a limited period after adoption of this Decision, producers should also be allowed to submit applications based either on the criteria established by those Decisions or on the new criteria established by this Decision. EU Ecolabel licences awarded in accordance with the criteria set out in one of the old Decisions should be allowed to be used for 18 months from the date of adoption of this Decision.

(16)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,