13 Amendments of Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA related to 2015/2065(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain, but brought in no specific measures to combat unfair trade practices;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes the existence of EU legislation to combat unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices (Directive 29/2005); stresses, however, the absence of EU rules to combat unfair practices between operators in the food chain;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. Is nevertheless in favour of a regulatory framework being set up at EU level to ensure the smooth operation of the EU’s internal market;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Doubts whetherBelieves voluntary initiatives are adequate for addressingto be insufficient to eliminate UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomNotes the setting up of national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food supply chain to promote fair trading practices and seek to put an end to UTPs, but takes the view that EU regulation needs to be brought in alongside those platforms;
Amendment 102 #
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 that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen, the risk being that the internal market will fragment further;
Amendment 120 #
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 and Spain's Law on measures to improve the functioning of the food supply chain as potential models for adaptation at EU level;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and promoted alongside relevant EU legislation ensuring that complaints can be lodged anonymously and establishing dissuasive penalties; encourages producers and traders to become involved in such initiatives; takes the view that they should play a leading role in efforts to combat UTPs;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Notes that there is EU legislation already in place to combat unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices (Directive 2005/29/EC), but points out that there is no EU legislation to combat unfair practices between different operators in the agri-food chain;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Points out that any serious analysis of UTPs must take as its starting point the new economic paradigm that has emerged over the last few years: large-scale retail in which access to sales outlets has become the subject of fierce competition under the control of the supermarkets; points out that some competition authorities have identified specific practices involving the transfer of excessive risk to suppliers which could render them less competitive; points out that those authorities also concluded that own brands bring in an element of horizontal competition vis-à-vis industry brands that has not been given sufficient consideration;
Amendment 172 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Argues that such legislation wouldis necessary to complement the SCI and protect stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiative, 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 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)
Paragraph 12 c (new)
12c. Points out that own brands represent a strategic issue in the medium and long term; emphasises that, over the last few years, several economists have drawn attention to the existence of a ‘risk threshold’ beyond which the market penetration of own brands in a given category of product would turn the current positive effects of own brands into negative effects, and provide a disincentive as regards the innovative efforts of many companies;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact; points out that the most serious consequence of UTPs may be to hamper investment and product innovation, reducing quality and variety and thereby curtailing consumer choice;