Activities of Miguel VIEGAS related to 2015/2065(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (A8-0173/2016 - Edward Czesak) PT
Amendments (20)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. RecognisNotes that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain, measures which have so far proved ineffective;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measuresthe measures introduced with the CAP reform, aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain have been a total failure; doubts, however, that the true objective of the measures was to strengthen the bargaining power of the production sector;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Believes that short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems should be encouraged as such types of food chains has specific social impacts, economic impacts at both regional and farm level as well as environmental impacts translating themselves into clear benefits for producers and consumers;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points to the limitations ofout that the weakness of farmers in the Ssupply Cchain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of farmers’ organisations owis a result both of the abandonment of measures regulating output ing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanhe various sectors of production, which has given rise to serious imbalances between supply and demand (the latest example being the acute crismis to adequately combat well-documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctionsfollowing the removal of milk quotas), and of the politically-motivated decision to end collective bargaining by outlawing minimum price agreements via competition rules, which has made it wholly impossible for farmers' organisations to engage in collective bargaining;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out reducing prices for the primary producer are not reflected in consumer prices which highlight the imbalance in the food supply chain and the need for regulation;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Adds that experience shows that when the Directorate-General for Competition has imposed sanctions on the milk industry, for instance, they were reflected in falls in prices, a clear sign that the sanctions were ultimately borne by the production sector;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Doubts whetherBelieves voluntary initiatives are to be inadequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), which is purely voluntary in nature, does not address the real problem arising from the highly concentrated structure of large-scale distribution and the supply-side rigidity that applies to most agricultural producers;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights that as supermarkets have acquired increasing reputation and market power, they have developed their own brands, this has given the retailer a new role – in addition to their traditional role as purchaser, they have become a direct competitor This widens the scope for buyer power abuse in that it can adversely affect choice for consumers and could also affect innovation;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given its limited success and also given the reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given the reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion thatat it foresees no regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; asks the Commission to assess these national efforts with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation at EU level;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; asks the Commission to assess these national effortefforts undertaken by states with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation at EU level;
Amendment 149 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essentialmay help to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers, given that it has an impact on specific issues such as pricing policies and payment deadlines and reflects the social and economic situation in each Member State; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;
Amendment 171 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Argues that such legislation would complement the SCI and protect stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiativethe production side, which is considered the most vulnerable bearing in mind the supply-side rigidity arising from long production cycles and the perishable nature of products, while ensuring that UTPs are eradicated from the food supply chain and providing primary producers with the necessary legal certainty to address their concerns.
Amendment 180 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Urges the commission to encourage a demand led food production system which will contribute to price stability and sustainability for producers in the medium to long term;
Amendment 183 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Takes the view that any supply chain initiative intending to promote a fair relationship between all links in the chain must begin by considering the mechanisms necessary for farmers to be paid prices covering labour and production costs;
Amendment 190 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Believes, furthermore, that restoring the bargaining power of the production sector is a necessary element in the regulation of production and markets;
Amendment 192 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Stresses how extreme the various price agreements between large retailers are, given that their aim is to set the price of milk below the cost of production;
Amendment 193 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Calls on the Commission to consider existing initiatives, such as the origin- destination price index, to develop instruments for the monitoring and control of prices paid to farmers in the food supply chain so to ensure the proper functioning of the chain.