Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
Modified by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002of 19 April 2002amending Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, 32002R0680, April 20, 2002
Actconcerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, 12003T, September 23, 2003
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2196/2003of 16 December 2003amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, 32003R2196, December 17, 2003
Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004of 9 January 2004amending Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, 32004R0039, January 10, 2004
Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006of 20 February 2006on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, 32006R0318, February 28, 2006
Corrected by
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 30 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, 32001R1260R(01), August 31, 2001
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001of 19 June 2001on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sectorTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 36 and 37 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the CommissionOJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001, p. 315.,Having regard to the opinion of the European ParliamentOpinion delivered on 13 March 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).,Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social CommitteeOJ C 116, 20.4.2001, p. 113.,Whereas:(1)In order to work properly, the common agricultural policy requires a common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector covering, in particular, sugar and isoglucose and inulin syrup, which are liquid substitutes for sugar.(2)In order to achieve the objectives of the common agricultural policy, and in particular to ensure that Community growers of sugar beet and sugar cane continue to benefit from the necessary guarantees in respect of employment and standards of living, the market in sugar should be stabilised. This objective can be attained by allowing intervention agencies to buy in sugar. For this purpose, an intervention price for white sugar should be fixed for areas having no deficit, as well as an intervention price for raw sugar, and, every year for each of the deficit areas, a derived intervention price for white sugar and, if necessary, for raw sugar. The intervention price must be fixed at a level which will ensure a fair income for sugar-beet and sugar-cane producers while taking account of the interests of consumers. Such price guarantees for sugar also benefit sugar syrups, isoglucose and inulin syrup, the prices of which are based on sugar prices. In view of the financial perspective and the budgetary rules adopted by the European Council in Berlin in March 1999, the support prices in the sugar sector should be fixed for the whole duration of the new arrangements.(3)The intervention price must be fixed for standard qualities of white sugar and raw sugar which should be defined. Such standard qualities should be average qualities representative of sugar produced in the Community and should be determined on the basis of criteria used by the sugar trade. It must also be possible to review the standard qualities to take account, in particular, of commercial requirements and developments in analysis techniques.(4)The geographical situation of the French overseas departments calls for appropriate measures for the sugar produced in those departments.(5)So as not to interfere with the prices referred to above, intervention agencies must sell sugar at a price higher than the intervention price unless it is to be exported either without further processing or in the form of processed products, or used as animal feed. One consequence of this rule is that sugar cannot be made available to charitable organisations for use for human consumption in the Community. It should nevertheless be possible to dispose of sugar in this fashion through individual emergency aid operations intended to ensure the availability of supplies and thus representing at the same time a humanitarian operation. Such operations are effective only if rapidly implemented. The most appropriate procedure should therefore be used in such instances.(6)Like starch products, sugar is a commodity which can be used by the chemical industry for the manufacture of similar products. A harmonious development of the use of such commodities should be ensured. A system of production refunds should be adopted which makes it possible to expand sugar outlets beyond traditional quantities; to that end, it should henceforth be possible to make the products in question available to that industry at a reduced price.(7)These rules should ensure fair treatment for both manufacturers and producers of the basic products. In addition to the basic price derived from the intervention price for white sugar, undertakings' receipts from sales of molasses, which can be estimated at EUR 7,61 per 100 kg derived from the price of molasses estimated at EUR 8,21 per 100 kg, as well as the cost incurred in processing and delivering beet to factories, and on the basis of a yield which for the Community can be estimated at 130 kg of white sugar per tonne of standard-quality beet, minimum prices should therefore be fixed for A beet intended for processing into A sugar and for B beet intended for processing into B sugar, to be paid by sugar manufacturers buying beet.(8)Specific instruments are needed to ensure a fair balance of rights and obligations between manufacturers and growers, in particular standard Community provisions should be laid down to govern the contractual relations between buyers and sellers of beet and adequate measures adopted for the same purpose for sugar cane. The provisions relating to the normal duration and staggering of deliveries, collection centres and transport costs, reception points and the taking of samples, the return of pulp or the payment of equivalent compensation and time limits for advance payments all affect the actual price of beet received by the seller. The diversity of natural, economic and technical situations makes it very difficult to have uniform purchase terms for beet throughout the Community. Agreements within the trade exist between manufacturers or manufacturers' organisations and planters' organisations. Framework provisions should simply define the minimum guarantees required by both beet planters and the industry to ensure the smooth functioning of the sugar economy and the possibility of derogating from some rules referred to in Annex III should be kept for agreements within the trade.(9)The reasons which have hitherto led the Community to adopt a production quota system for sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup currently remain valid. However, that system has been adjusted to take account of recent developments in production, to provide the Community with the instruments necessary to ensure, in a fair yet efficient way, that the producers themselves meet in full the cost of disposing of the surpluses of Community production over consumption and to comply with the Community's obligations under the Agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, hereinafter referred to as "GATT", approved by Decision 94/800/ECOJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 1..(10)The agreement on agriculture concluded under the GATT agreements (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") in particular requires the Community to gradually reduce its export support for agricultural products and in particular for sugar under guarantee of production quotas. The Agreement provides for export support to be reduced, in terms of both the quantities covered and the level of the subsidies involved, over a transitional period. As a first step in adjusting the guarantees, the difference recorded for a given marketing year between the Community's exportable volume and the amount set in the Agreement should be apportioned between sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup according to the percentages which the quotas of each represent in the total quota set for all three products for the Community. However, such a system should apply for a limited period only and should be regarded as transitional. In view, in particular, of the financial perspective and the budgetary rules adopted by the European Council in Berlin in March 1999 and the need to take account of the progress of negotiations under the WTO, the quota system should be maintained for the 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 marketing years.(11)The common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector is based, firstly, on the principle that producers should bear full financial responsibility for the losses incurred each marketing year from disposing of that part of Community production under quota which is surplus to the Community's internal consumption and, secondly, on a differentiation of price guarantees for disposal reflecting the production quota allocated to each undertaking. A sugar production quota is allocated to each undertaking on the basis of its actual production during a particular reference period.(12)Since commitments to reduce export support were implemented during the transitional period, the basic quantities of sugar and isoglucose and the quotas for inulin syrup should be kept at their present levels, but it must be possible for the relevant guarantees to be adjusted as necessary to enable the Community to comply with its commitments under the Agreement, while taking account of the fundamental factors affecting the situation of its sugar sector. The sector's system of self-financing through production levies and the production quota regime should be maintained.(13)The producers should thus continue to assume financial responsibility by paying a basic production levy charged on all production of A and B sugar, which is however limited to 2 % of the intervention price for white sugar, and a B levy charged on the production of B sugar up to a limit of 37,5 % of that price. In certain circumstances, producers of isoglucose and inulin syrup also pay a proportion of those contributions. Capping the levies in the manner described above means that in some marketing years sugar production is not fully self-financing. An additional levy should be charged in those cases.(14)In the interests of equal treatment, the additional levy should be calculated for each undertaking on the basis of its share in the revenue generated by the production levies which it has paid for the marketing year in question. A coefficient should therefore be fixed for the Community as a whole representing the ratio for that marketing year between the total loss recorded and the total revenue generated by the production levies concerned. It is necessary to specify the conditions under which beet and cane sellers are to contribute to eliminating the outstanding loss for the marketing year concerned.(15)In any given marketing year, the consumption, production, importation, stock and carryover levels, and the average loss likely to be borne under the self-financing scheme, may be such that the production quotas allocated to each undertaking in the sugar sector result in an export volume exceeding that set in the Agreement. The guarantees linked to the quotas should therefore be adjusted each marketing year so that the Community can meet its commitments.(16)The breakdown between sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup should be followed by a further breakdown between the Member States to take account of the guarantees linked to the quotas assigned to producing undertakings in each Member State so that those guarantees can be adjusted in a way that does not affect the existing balance of quotas and burden-sharing. A reduction coefficient for the A and B guarantees should therefore be fixed for each Member State based on the maximum contributions pertaining to those guarantees. Each Member State concerned should then make an allocation among undertakings which takes account of the guarantees arising for each undertaking from its own quotas.(17)The A and B quotas are affected, following a merger or transfer of undertakings, the transfer by an undertaking of one of its factories or the cessation of activities of an undertaking or of one of its factories. The conditions for adjustment by the Member States of the quotas of the undertakings in question should be established while ensuring that changes to the quotas of sugar-producing undertakings are not detrimental to the interests of the beet producers or cane producers concerned.(18)Given the need to allow for a certain structural adjustment of the processing industry and of beet and cane growing during the period in which these quotas are to be applied, Member States should be allowed to alter the quotas of undertakings by a maximum of 10 %. However, in view of the particular situation of the sugar sector in Spain, Italy and the French overseas departments, this limit should not be applied in those regions while restructuring plans are being implemented.(19)Since allocating production quotas to undertakings is a way of ensuring that producers are paid Community prices and have an outlet for their production, the interests of all the parties concerned, in particular beet and cane producers, should be taken into consideration when quotas are transferred inside production regions.(20)To expand the outlets for sugar and isoglucose on the Community's internal market, it should be possible to put all sugar or isoglucose intended for manufacture in the Community of products other than foodstuffs out of production, within the meaning of the quota system, under conditions to be laid down.(21)A Community market for sugar as for isoglucose and inulin syrup requires a common trading system at the external frontiers of the Community. A trading system including import levies and export refunds will stabilise the Community market, in particular, by preventing prices inside the Community from being affected by price fluctuations on the world market. A levy should therefore be charged on imports from third countries and a refund paid on exports to such countries to compensate for the difference between prices on the sugar market inside and outside the Community when world market prices are lower than the Community prices, and to provide a certain measure of protection for the Community industry processing isoglucose and inulin syrup.(22)To ensure that these trading arrangements can function properly, it must be possible to regulate or prohibit the use of inward-processing arrangements when the situation on the market so requires.(23)Should a shortage on the world market result in higher prices on the world market than in the Community, or should all or part of the Community be unable to obtain normal supplies, it must be possible to act in good time to avoid a situation where regional surpluses are exported to third countries while an abnormal rise in Community prices makes it impossible to continue to supply consumers at reasonable prices.(24)The competent authorities must be in a position to constantly monitor movements in trade with third countries so as to assess trends and apply such of the measures provided for in this Regulation as may prove necessary. To this end, there should be a system of import and export licences, to be issued only after a security has been lodged to ensure that the operation covered by a licence application is actually carried out.(25)The system of customs duties makes it possible to dispense with all other forms of protection at the external frontiers of the Community. However, in exceptional circumstances the prices and customs duties machinery could break down. So as not to leave the Community market unprotected against disturbances which may ensue in such cases, the Community should be able to take whatever measures are necessary without delay. Such measures must comply with the Community's obligations under the GATT Agreements. Moreover, in order to avert problems of supply to the Community market, it must be possible to suspend customs duties on certain sugar products.(26)The Community has made an overall examination of its refining industry. This examination has shown that if a steadier and more even flow of supplies to refineries throughout the Community is to be achieved, a clear estimate is needed of the traditional presumed maximum requirements of raw sugar for refining into white sugar in each of the Member States concerned, namely Finland, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom, using objective reference data and taking into account the quantities of sugar going for direct consumption recorded for the 1994/1995 marketing year. A special preferential arrangement for access to the Community market should therefore be introduced, allowing the refining industry to import on special terms certain quantities of raw cane sugar originating in the ACP States party to Protocol No 3 to Annex IV to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and in India and other States under agreements with those States. Those quantities are to be determined within the limits of the traditional presumed maximum requirements referred to above on the basis of forecast supply balances once all available raw cane and beet sugar of Community origin and preferential raw sugar and raw sugar originating in countries benefiting from tariff quotas under trade concessions granted by the Community have been refined. In order to counterbalance the Community's commitments to reduce export support, the quantities imported to cover the traditional requirements of the refining industry should be reduced.(27)Under Article 1 of the said Protocol and Article 1 of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of India on cane sugar, these preferential import arrangements must be implemented within the framework of the common organisation of the market in sugar.(28)It is necessary to create the means for ensuring that raw cane sugar imported under the said preferential arrangements is refined under the fairest possible conditions of competition.(29)Sugar refining is an important activity both at world level and in the Community, particularly in refineries converting raw sugar into white sugar. From a technical point of view, refining turns sugar cane into high-quality products that can meet market requirements. Moreover, these refineries are located in areas of high consumption. The Community's port-related refining industry is therefore a valuable complement to the beet-processing industry, especially in Finland, mainland Portugal, the United Kingdom and southern and western France.(30)Examination of supplies to port refineries throughout the Community, suggests that special priority access should be given to raw cane sugar originating in the ACP States party to Protocol No 3 and India, under special agreements negotiated between the Community and the countries referred to in Protocol No 3 and/or other countries and based on an estimate of the Community's requirements once all available raw cane and beet sugar in the Community, preferential raw sugar and raw sugar originating in countries benefiting from tariff quotas under trade concessions granted by the Community have been refined.(31)Until the 2000/2001 marketing year, the refining industry received Community adjustment aid for refining preferential raw cane sugar and raw sugar from cane and beet harvested in the Community. In the light of experience, this aid should continue and provision should be made for it to be adjusted to take account of economic trends in the sugar sector, particularly manufacturing and refining margins.(32)Some transitional measures may prove necessary and this need may arise at each changeover from one marketing year to the next or during a single marketing year. It should therefore be possible to adopt the appropriate measures.(33)To facilitate implementation of this Regulation, a procedure is needed for close cooperation between Member States and the Commission within a Management Committee for Sugar.(34)Owing to its specific characteristics and the size of agricultural holdings, the beet industry in the south of Italy faces persistent difficulties. Beet growing in that area is essential in order to regenerate soils with a particularly high level of clay and thus to avoid a return to single-crop farming; Italy should therefore be authorised to grant the southern regions national aid over the next five marketing years in respect of the same amount and under the same conditions as for the 2000/2001 marketing year. Sugar cane production in Spain is encountering specific problems in keeping up with other crops; to enable this particular production to be maintained, Spain should be authorised to grant national aid for sugar cane production over the next five marketing years in respect of the same amount and under the same conditions as for the 2000/2001 marketing year. Beet production in Portugal, having regard to the fact that this is a new industry, faces persistent difficulties; sugar beet producers need to be encouraged to increase production in view of these difficulties; Portugal should therefore be authorised to grant national aid for beet production over the next five marketing years in respect of the same amount and under the same conditions as for the 2000/2001 marketing year. Climatic conditions make it very difficult to grow beet in Finland, which leads to considerable variability in production; consequently, Finland should be authorised to grant a flat-rate reimbursement of storage costs for carried-over C sugar and the detailed rules for such reimbursement should be determined.(35)In order to take account of environmental objectives, Member States should draw up and implement suitable environmental measures they consider to be appropriate concerning the use of agricultural land for the production of the products referred to in Article 1. In future, Member States may introduce measures to promote production in accordance with objective environmental criteria and remind producers of the need to comply with the legislation in force. The Member States must submit a report on the impact of national environmental measures on the agricultural production sector of the sugar sector.(36)Under Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policyOJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103., the expenses incurred by the Member States in meeting obligations arising from the application of this Regulation are to be borne by the Community.(37)The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the CommissionOJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23..(38)The support arrangements introduced by this Regulation replace the arrangements provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sectorOJ L 252, 25.9.1999, p. 1., which must be repealed along with Regulations (EEC) No 206/68Council Regulation (EEC) No 206/68 of 20 February 1968 laying down outline provisions for contracts and inter-trade agreements on the purchase of beet (OJ L 47, 23.2.1968, p. 1)., (EEC) No 431/68Council Regulation (EEC) No 431/68 of 9 April 1968 determining the standard quality for raw sugar and fixing the Community frontier crossing point for calculating cif prices for sugar (OJ L 89, 10.4.1968, p. 3)., (EEC) No 447/68Council Regulation (EEC) No 447/68 of 9 April 1968 laying down general rules for intervention buying of sugar (OJ L 91, 12.4.1968, p. 5). Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1359/77 (OJ L 156, 25.6.1977, p. 7)., (EEC) No 2049/69Council Regulation (EEC) No 2049/69 of 17 October 1969 laying down general rules on the denaturing of sugar for animal feed (OJ L 263, 21.10.1969, p. 1)., (EEC) No 793/72Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/72 of 17 April 1972 fixing the standard quality for white sugar (OJ L 94, 21.4.1972, p. 1)., (EEC) No 741/75Council Regulation (EEC) No 741/75 of 18 March 1975 laying down special rules for the purchase of sugar beet (OJ L 74, 22.3.1975, p. 2)., (EEC) No 1358/77Council Regulation (EEC) No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977 laying down general rules for offsetting storage costs for sugar and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 750/68 (OJ L 156, 25.6.1977, p. 4)., (EEC) No 1789/81Council Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81 of 30 June 1981 laying down general rules concerning the system of minimum stocks in the sugar sector (OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 39). Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 725/97 (OJ L 108, 25.4.1997, p. 13)., (EEC) No 193/82Council Regulation (EEC) No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying down general rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar sector (OJ L 21, 29.1.1982, p. 3)., (EEC) No 1010/86Council Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (OJ L 94, 9.4.1986, p. 9). and (EEC) No 2225/86Council Regulation (EEC) No 2225/86 of 15 July 1986 laying down measures for the marketing of sugar produced in the French overseas departments and for the equalisation of the price conditions with preferential raw sugar (OJ L 194, 17.7.1986, p. 7). laying down the general rules for its implementation.(39)Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 provided for a system for compensating storage costs. Since the regime to be introduced by this Regulation does not include such a system, transitional provisions should be adopted to ease the transition from the old system to the new one. To that end, firstly, the balance of the old compensation system for storage costs should be charged, if negative, or credited, if positive, to the system for financing the disposal of surplus Community production in the sugar sector and, secondly, the date of disposal for the purposes of paying the storage levy for sugar in storage at the date of entry into application of this Regulation should be deemed to be the last day of the 2000/2001 marketing year.(40)It should be possible to adopt transitional rules to ease the transition from the regime provided for by Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 to the new arrangements introduced by this Regulation,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: