title: Council Recommendation of 11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Slovenia and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Slovenia

text:
               9.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/105

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 11 July 2017
   on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Slovenia and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Slovenia
   (2017/C 261/23)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 November 2016, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2017 European Semester for economic policy coordination. The priorities of the Annual Growth Survey were endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 16 November 2016, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it identified Slovenia as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out. On the same date, the Commission also adopted a recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area, which was endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 21 March 2017, the Council adopted the Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area (‘Recommendation for the euro area’) (3).

               (2)

               As a Member State whose currency is the euro and in view of the close interlinkages between the economies in the economic and monetary union, Slovenia should ensure the full and timely implementation of the Recommendation for the euro area, as reflected in recommendations (1) to (3) below.

               (3)

               The 2017 country report for Slovenia was published on 22 February 2017. It assessed Slovenia’s progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Council on 12 July 2016, the follow-up given to the country-specific recommendations adopted in previous years and Slovenia’s progress towards its national Europe 2020 targets. It also included an in-depth review under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the results of which were also published on 22 February 2017. The Commission’s analysis led it to conclude that Slovenia is experiencing macroeconomic imbalances. In particular, weaknesses in the banking sector, corporate debt, and fiscal risks constitute vulnerabilities. Stock imbalances are gradually unwinding in light of resumed growth. The corporate sector has undergone a substantial debt reduction, and private investment, including in the form of foreign direct investment, has resumed, although stocks from inbound foreign direct investment remain low compared to regional peers. Public debt has peaked in 2015, and a downward adjustment is expected in the coming years. Progress on the front of banking sector restructuring has coincided with a rapidly falling share of non-performing loans, which is expected to continue to decline. Relevant measures have been taken by the Government to consolidate and restructure the banking sector, and to improve the governance of state-owned enterprises. However, further policy action is needed to address corporate debt and remaining weaknesses in the financial sector, to ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances, and improve the business environment.

               (4)

               Slovenia submitted its 2017 Stability Programme on 28 April 2017 and its 2017 National Reform Programme on 3 May 2017. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (5)

               Relevant country-specific recommendations have been addressed in the programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) for the 2014-2020 period. As provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), where it is necessary to support the implementation of relevant Council recommendations, the Commission may request a Member State to review and propose amendments to its Partnership Agreement and relevant programmes. The Commission has provided further details on how it would make use of that provision in guidelines on the application of the measures linking effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance.

               (6)

               Slovenia is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and subject to the transitional debt rule. In its 2017 Stability Programme, the Government expects that the headline deficit will improve to 0,8 % of GDP in 2017 and then reach a surplus of 0,4 % of GDP in 2020. The medium-term budgetary objective — a balanced budget in structural terms, which does not respect the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact — is planned to be reached by 2020. However, based on the recalculated (5) structural balance, the medium-term budgetary objective would not be met by the programme horizon. According to the 2017 Stability Programme, the general government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to fall to 77,0 % of GDP in 2017 and continue to fall to 67,5 % of GDP in 2020. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning those budgetary projections is plausible. At the same time, the measures needed to support the planned targets from 2017 onwards have not been sufficiently specified.

               (7)

               The 2017 Stability Programme indicates that the budgetary impact of the exceptional inflow of refugees is significant in 2016 and 2017 and provides adequate evidence of the scope and nature of these additional budgetary costs. According to the Commission, the eligible additional expenditure for the exceptional inflow of refugees in 2016 amounted to 0,07 % of GDP. This amount is unchanged compared to the 2017 Draft Budgetary Plan, which confirmed the projections of the 2016 Stability Programme. For 2017, the Stability Programme included a request for 0,07 % of GDP, of which the Commission will consider the incremental impact amounting to 0,01 % of GDP. The provisions set out in Articles 5(1) and 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 cater for this additional expenditure, in that the inflow of refugees and security-related measures are related to unusual events, their impact on Slovenia’s public finances is significant and sustainability would not be compromised by allowing for a temporary deviation from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective. Therefore, the required adjustment towards the medium-term budgetary objective for 2016 has been reduced to take into account those additional budgetary costs. Regarding 2017, a final assessment, including on the eligible amounts, will be made in spring 2018 on the basis of observed data as provided by the Slovenian authorities.

               (8)

               On 12 July 2016, the Council recommended Slovenia to achieve an annual fiscal adjustment of at least 0,6 % of GDP towards the medium-term budgetary objective in 2017. Based on the Commission 2017 spring forecast, there is a risk of some deviation from that requirement in 2017.

               (9)

               In 2018, in the light of its fiscal situation and in particular of its debt level, Slovenia is expected to further adjust towards an appropriate medium-term budgetary objective. According to the commonly agreed adjustment matrix under the Stability and Growth Pact, that adjustment translates into a requirement of a nominal growth rate of net primary government expenditure (6) which does not exceed 0,6 %. It would correspond to a structural adjustment of 1 % of GDP. Under unchanged policies, there is a risk of a significant deviation from that requirement in 2018. Slovenia is projected to comply with the debt rule in 2017 and 2018. Overall, the Council is of the opinion that Slovenia needs to stand ready to take further measures in 2017 and that further measures will be needed in 2018 to comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. However, as foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the assessment of the budgetary plans and outcomes should take account of the Member State’s budgetary balance in the light of the cyclical conditions. As recalled in the Commission Communication on the 2017 European Semester accompanying these country-specific recommendations, the assessment of the 2018 Draft Budgetary Plan and subsequent assessment of 2018 budget outcomes will need to take due account of the goal to achieve a fiscal stance that contributes to both strengthening the ongoing recovery and ensuring the sustainability of Slovenia’s public finances. In that context, the Council notes that the Commission intends to carry out an overall assessment in line with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, in particular in the light of the cyclical situation of Slovenia. Furthermore, there is significant uncertainty regarding the cyclical position in the specific case of Slovenia because of the particularly large economic contraction in 2008-2013 and the major structural and financial-sector reforms being implemented.

               (10)

               The Fiscal Rules Act adopted in July 2015 introduced a medium-term budgetary framework for the general government. In order to make it operational, certain amendments to the Public Finance Act are necessary. Initially the Government committed to having the revised Public Finance Act adopted within six months of the adoption of the Fiscal Rules Act. However, this deadline was repeatedly postponed and the revised act has not yet been submitted to the Parliament for deliberation. The revised Public Finance Act constitutes one of the legal vehicles transposing into national legislation Council Directive 2011/85/EU (7), which Member States were obliged to complete by the end of 2013. The members of the Fiscal Council were appointed on 21 March 2017.

               (11)

               The high public debt at 79,7 % of GDP in 2016 represents a source of vulnerability for the public finances in Slovenia. The country’s population is ageing faster than that of most Member States. Slovenia faces high risks on the long-term sustainability of public finances and its long-term sustainability gap indicator is the highest of all Member States, stemming from the projected increase in pension-related public spending, healthcare and long-term care expenditure.

               (12)

               The Government has presented proposals to reform the healthcare system. The draft Healthcare and Health Insurance Act, which is the central piece of the reform, was put to public consultation in February 2017 and is scheduled to be forwarded to the National Assembly by summer 2017. Respecting the envisaged timing is important and should allow the act to become law still in 2017. In December 2016, the proposals to amend the Health Services Act and the Patient Rights Act were presented and the new Pharmacies Act was adopted. Remaining challenges concern the governance and performance of hospitals, primary care as a gatekeeper for inpatient care, hospital payment systems, health technology assessments, and information systems. In addition, the benefits from centralised public procurement of medical products and services remain largely untapped while a new centralised public procurement for medicines is under preparation that could help procurement to become more transparent and cost-efficient. Advancing in long-term care reform is also a significant challenge. To date, there is no integrated long-term care system in Slovenia. A pilot project to determine the long-term care needs is being prepared.

               (13)

               The White Paper on pensions was adopted by the Government in April 2016 and has opened a public consultation on the future of the pension system. However, concrete legislative proposals are still lacking. Challenges on the way ahead are to ensure the long-term sustainability and adequacy of the pension system by adjusting the statutory pension age to life expectancy gains and promoting later retirement, to boost the coverage of the supplementary pension schemes, to adequately address varying career paths and to reduce old-age poverty risks.

               (14)

               Labour market and social trends continued to improve. Job creation has picked up and unemployment is decreasing. The rate of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion decreased but remains above the Union average for the elderly. The improving labour market offers an opportunity to provide employment for older workers, but their participation rates remain low. Entering retirement via the unemployment insurance system has become increasingly common in recent years. Long-term unemployment remains above pre-crisis levels and represents more than half of all unemployed. More than 40 % of all long-term unemployed are aged over 50 and almost half of them are unemployed for two years or more. An analysis and an action plan that aims to increase the employment rate of older workers has been prepared and discussed with social partners. Timely implementation of the action plan can help to improve the activation of older workers. The employment rate of low-skilled workers remains low and well below the pre-crisis level and the Union average. The active labour market policy implementation plan adopted in January 2016 continues the current approach, while expenditure in this field remains low. Older and low-skilled workers continue to be underrepresented in active labour market policy measures. Labour market segmentation remains a challenge despite the reform in 2013.

               (15)

               The level of non-performing loans, while still high, is on a solid downward path. The Bank of Slovenia has implemented a number of measures that are giving banks incentives to reduce their non-performing loans sustainably. Debt reduction pressures have started to ease but credit flows to firms continue to contract. The progress in debt reduction has been uneven across individual firms. The consolidation and restructuring of the banking sector are progressing with the merger of three banks in 2016. Slovenia committed to sell at least 50 % of its shareholding in the largest state-owned bank by 31 December 2017 and another 25 % minus one share by 31 December 2018. Revisions to the legislative framework further reinforced the corporate restructuring capacity of the Bank Asset Management Company. Non-performing loans remain high among SMEs. To address the issue, a systematic approach to SME work out of non-performing loans has been prepared with the help of the World Bank. In addition, the Government adopted a bill to set up a central credit register to enable more efficient risk management and reduce the risk of indebtedness.

               (16)

               Access to alternative financing sources for a creditworthy business is very limited. The Slovenian Enterprise Fund and the Slovenska izvozna in razvojna banka (SID bank) have mainly introduced new debt instruments for SMEs including measures such as microcredits. One seed capital scheme was implemented in 2016 by the Slovenian Enterprise Fund with under 50 SME beneficiaries. Other alternative financing instruments, including venture capital and equity with use of the ESI Funds, could be a major source of additional financing but remain largely untapped.

               (17)

               The implementation of the 2015-2020 strategy for the development of public administration is underway, and some progress has been made. However, some specific measures, like the adoption of the Civil Service Act, have been further delayed. The Government programme for reducing the administrative burden is estimated to have created total savings of EUR 365 million between 2009 and 2015 and almost 60 % of 318 measures to reduce the administrative burden have been achieved. However, private investment continues to be hindered by complex and lengthy administrative procedures, especially in construction and spatial planning. While the efficiency and quality of the justice system have further improved, in commercial cases it still takes a long time to schedule first hearings and claims cannot be submitted by electronic means. Despite the adoption of some key anti-corruption reforms like the zero-tolerance-to-corruption programme, the perception of corruption remains negative and appears to influence business decisions. After the initial progress in modernising the regulation of professions, the reforms have slowed down. Lifting restrictive barriers with regard to the regulation of professions could support competition in those professions’ markets.

               (18)

               State involvement in the economy remains high despite the privatisation programme initiated in 2013. The state is the largest employer, asset manager and corporate debt holder in Slovenia. Combined with weak corporate governance, high state ownership has had considerable fiscal and economic implications. They are estimated at EUR 13 billion or about one third of GDP in 2007-2014, primarily due to financial-sector stabilisation measures and foregone profits of state-owned enterprises compared to their private peers. The performance of state-owned enterprises has started to improve, underpinned by a new corporate governance system, but risks remain. By the end of 2015 results showed an improved profitability of the enterprises under the management of the Slovenian Sovereign Holding, albeit falling short of the intermediate target set in the management strategy. An asset management plan for 2017, quantifying the performance indicators for each separate state-owned enterprise and updating a list of assets for divestment, was approved by the Government in January 2017. At the same time, a revision of the asset management strategy, first approved by the Parliament in 2015, is still pending, with the Government having deferred its decision to the second half of 2017. Although a new president of the management board was appointed at the end of February 2017, the full supervisory board is not yet in place.

               (19)

               In the context of the 2017 European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Slovenia’s economic policy and published it in the 2017 country report. It has also assessed the 2017 Stability Programme, the 2017 National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to Slovenia in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Slovenia, but also their compliance with Union rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the Union’s overall economic governance by providing Union -level input into future national decisions.

               (20)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 Stability Programme and its opinion (8) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.

               (21)

               In the light of the Commission’s in-depth review and this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 National Reform Programme and the 2017 Stability Programme. Its recommendations made under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 are reflected in recommendations (1) and (3) below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Slovenia take action in 2017 and 2018 to:

               1.

               Pursue a substantial fiscal effort in 2018 in line with the requirements of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, taking into account the need to strengthen the ongoing recovery and to ensure the sustainability of Slovenia’s public finances. Adopt and implement the proposed reform of the healthcare system and adopt the planned reform of long-term care, increasing cost-effectiveness, accessibility and quality care. Fully tap the potential of centralised procurement in the health sector. Adopt the necessary measures to ensure the long-term sustainability and adequacy of the pension system.

               2.

               Intensify efforts to increase the employability of low-skilled and older workers, particularly through targeted lifelong learning and activation measures.

               3.

               Improve the financing conditions, including by facilitating a durable resolution of non-performing loans and access to alternative sources of financing. Ensure the full implementation of the bank asset management company strategy. Reduce the administrative burden on business deriving from rules on spatial planning and construction permits and ensure good governance of state-owned enterprises.

      Done at Brussels, 11 July 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         T. TÕNISTE

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25.

      (3)  OJ C 92, 24.3.2017, p. 1.

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320).

      (5)  Cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and temporary measures, recalculated by the Commission using the commonly agreed methodology.

      (6)  Net government expenditure comprises total government expenditure excluding interest expenditure, expenditure on Union programmes fully matched by Union funds revenue and non-discretionary changes in unemployment benefit expenditure. Nationally financed gross fixed capital formation is smoothed over a 4-year period. Discretionary revenue measures or revenue increases mandated by law are factored in. One-off measures on both the revenue and expenditure sides are netted out.

      (7)  Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 41).

      (8)  Under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97.


Avis juridique important

|

31986H0242

86/242/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 25 April 1986 addressed to the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on a draft law on the division of goods transport between rail and road

Official Journal L 163 , 19/06/1986 P. 0041 - 0042

*****COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATION  of 25 April 1986  addressed to the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on a draft law on the division of goods transport between rail and road  (86/242/EEC)  In accordance with Article 1 of the Council Decision of 21 March 1962 instituting a procedure for prior examination and consultation in respect of certain laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning transport proposed in Member States (1), as amended by Decision 73/402/EEC (2), the Luxembourg Government sent the Commission, under cover of a letter of 23 October 1985 from the office of its permanent representative to the European Communities, the text of a draft law on the division of goods transport between rail and road.  The letter from the office of the Luxembourg permanent representative reached the Commission on 28 October 1985.  Pursuant to Article 2 (3) of the said Decision the Commission organized a meeting in Brussels on 19 December 1985 to consult the Member States on the law in question.  The period of two months within which the Commission must give its opinion as laid down in Article 2 (1) of the said Decision was extended to 28 March 1986 in accordance with Article 2 (4) of that Decision.  Under Article 2 of the said Decision the Commission hereby delivers the following opinion:  1. The Commission notes that, according to the Luxembourg Government, the aim of the draft law is to enable the public authorities to influence the division of goods transport between modes of transport. A Grand Ducal decree would be adopted to prohibit the carriage of certain goods (ECSC products, petroleum products and chemicals) by road and require their transfer to the railways.  The Commission has noted the explanatory memorandum to the draft law and the statements made by the representative of the Luxembourg Government at the consultative meeting on 19 December 1985, according to which:  - the law would apply to national and international transport operations and transit operations through Luxembourg, operations for hire or reward and for own account and operations by non-resident and Luxembourg carriers,  - the draft law forms part of Government action in Luxembourg to promote the use of the railways for the carriage of heavy goods (3) which is necessitated by the fact that the Luxembourg railways' deficit accounts for 10 % of Luxembourg's annual State budget,  - this transfer from road to rail could only be required for reasons of road traffic and road safety (public policy and security), environmental protection (quality of life) and optimum use of available rail equipment,  - the measures in question would be applied only where there are branch lines permitting the transport operations concerned to be carried out by the railways,  - a prohibition on the carriage of certain types of goods by road would be decreed primarily for regular supply or forwarding operations involving obvious nuisances for the public such as the regular carriage of scrap metal or coal dust by road through inhabited areas.  2. It should be noted that, at the meeting on 19 December 1985, the Member States which were represented or had notified their opinions in writing gave a negative opinion on the draft law proposed by the Luxembourg Government.  3. The Commission would draw Luxembourg's attention to the fact that the measures proposed would widen the present disparities between national policies of the Member States. As far as the Commission is aware, no other Member State has introduced provisions as wide in scope as those which Luxembourg proposes to adopt. Any increase in such disparities would run counter to the creation of a unified internal market advocated by the Commission in its White Paper on completing the internal market (4).  The Commission takes the view that capacity regulation resulting in an allocation of traffic by the public authorities would be incompatible with the basic principles of the common transport policy formulated in:  - the Commission Memorandum entitled 'Progress Towards a Common Transport Policy - Inland Transport' (1), which rejected the idea of support for the railways through measures imposing greater restrictions on other modes of transport,  - the conclusions of the European Council of Heads of State and Government meeting in Milan in June 1985, which welcomed the Commission's White Paper and decided that the creation of a free transport market was a priority to be pursued by the Community,  - the policy guidelines adopted by the Council on 14 November 1985, which call for the creation by 1992 of a free transport market without any quantitative restrictions.  4. Compulsory transfer of certain goods from road to rail would have deleterious consequences in the road sector for both Luxembourg and foreign carriers. Such mandatory transfer would lead to a reduction in carriers' turnover and productivity and to an appreciable rise in transport costs, primarily because goods would have to be trans-shipped.  The proposed measures could therefore have harmful economic and social effects on the industries whose products are covered by the draft law, without helping to achieve one of the law's objectives, namely to reduce the Luxembourg railways' deficit.  5. The Commission entirely approves of the other objectives pursued by the Luxembourg Government, in particular road safety and protection of the environment. It considers the achievement of these objectives to be a major task of paramount importance to be assumed by the authorities in the public interest. However, the Commission believes that these objectives can be satisfactorily attained by other means better befitting the aims pursued. The legal basis of such measures should be the highway code and road traffic laws.  6. In the light of the foregoing the Commission considers it necessary to recommend to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg that it withdraw its draft law in its present form.  If current legislation in Luxembourg, in particular the highway code, does not provide sufficient scope to ensure effective protection of the environment, road traffic or road safety, the Commission recommends that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg supplement these laws by other provisions on the lines of those which already exist in other Member States.  7. The Commission is informing the other Member States of this recommendation.  Done at Brussels, 25 April 1986.  For the Commission  Stanley CLINTON DAVIS  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No 23, 3. 4. 1962, p. 720/62.  (2) OJ No L 347, 17. 12. 1973, p. 48.  (3) See 'Government Programme' submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on 23 July 1984.  (4) COM(85) 310 final, 14 June 1985.  (1) COM(83) 58 final, 9 February 1983.


Avis juridique important

|

32002H0001

Commission Recommendation of 27 December 2001 concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme for 2002 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and certain other products of plant origin (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 3771)

Official Journal L 002 , 04/01/2002 P. 0008 - 0012

Commission Recommendationof 27 December 2001concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme for 2002 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and certain other products of plant origin(notified under document number C(2001) 3771)(Text with EEA relevance)(2002/1/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals(1), as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/57/EC(2), and in particular Article 7(2)(b) thereof,Having regard to Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables(3), as last amended by Directive 2001/57/EC, and in particular Article 4(2)(b) thereof,Whereas:(1) Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 90/642/EEC require the Commission to submit to the Standing Committee on Plant Health by 31 December each year a recommendation setting out a coordinated Community monitoring programme to ensure compliance for maximum levels of pesticide residues set out in the Annexes II to the said Directives. Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 645/2000(4) provides that such recommendations may cover a periods of between one and five years.(2) The Commission should progressively work towards a system which would permit the estimation of dietary exposure to actual pesticide, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 7(3) of Directive 86/362/EEC and the second paragraph of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/642/EEC. To facilitate examination of the feasibility of such estimations, data concerning the monitoring of residues of pesticides in a number of food products which constitute major components of European diets should be available. In view of the resources available at national level for pesticide residue monitoring, Member States are only able to analyse samples of eight products each year within a coordinated monitoring programme. Pesticide uses show changes within the timescale of the five-year rolling programme. Each pesticide should thus generally be monitored in 20 to 30 food products over a series of three-year cycles.(3) Member States should adopt continuous monitoring methods, since these facilitate the recognition of changes in the occurrence of pesticides.(4) Residues of the pesticides acephate, the benomyl group, chlorpyriphos, iprodione and methamidophos should be monitored in 2002, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for the estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group A in Annex I) have already been monitored between 1996 and 2001.(5) Residues of the pesticides diazinon, metalaxyl, methidathion, thiabendazole and triazophos should be monitored between 2002 and 2005, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for the estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group B in Annex I) have already been monitored between 1997 and 2001.(6) Residues of the pesticides chlorpyriphos-methyl, deltamethrin, endosulfan, imazalil, lambda-cyhalothrin, the maneb group, mecarbam, permethrin, pirimiphos-methyl and vinclozolin should be monitored between 2002 and 2005, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for the estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group C in Annex I) have already been monitored between 1998 and 2001.(7) Residues of the pesticides azinphos-methyl, captan, chlorothalonil, dichlofluanid, dicofol, dimethoate, folpet, malathion, omethoate, oxydemeton-methyl, phorate, procymidone, propyzamide and azoxystrobine should be monitored between 2002 and 2005, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for the estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group D in Annex I) have already been monitored in 2001.(8) Residues of the pesticides aldicarb, bromopropylate, cypermethrin, methiocarb, methomyl, parathion and tolylfluanid should be monitored between 2002 and 2005, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for the estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group E in Annex I) will be monitored in 2002.(9) A systematic statistical approach to numbers of samples to be taken in each coordinated monitoring exercise is necessary. Such an approach has been set out by the Commission of the Codex Alimentarius(5). Based on a binomial probability distribution it can be calculated that examination of 459 samples gives a 99 % confidence of detecting one sample containing pesticide residues above the limit of determination (LOD) where 1 % of products of plant origin contain residues above the LOD. At least 459 samples should therefore be taken across the Community. Collection of these samples should be apportioned between Member States on the basis of population and consumer numbers, with a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year.(10) Draft guidelines concerning Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis, have been discussed by the experts of the Member States at Oeiras, Portugal on 15 and 16 September 1997 and discussed and noted in the Subgroup Pesticide Residues of the Working Group on Plant Health on 20 and 21 November 1997. It is agreed that these draft guidelines should be implemented as far as possible by the analytical laboratories of the Member States and should be reviewed in the light of this experience. The guidelines were again discussed and revised by the experts of the Member States in Athens on 15, 16 and 17 November 1999. The revised guidelines have been submitted to the Standing Committee on Plant Health and have been published by the Commission(6).(11) Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 90/642/EEC requires Member States to specify the criteria applied in drawing up their national inspection programmes when sending to the Commission information on their implementation during the following year. Such information should include the criteria applied in determining the numbers of samples to be taken and analyses to be carried out and the reporting levels applied and the criteria by which the reporting levels have been fixed. Details of accreditation under Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs(7) of the laboratories carrying out analyses should be indicated.(12) Information on the results of monitoring programmes is particularly appropriate for treatment, storage and transmission by electronic/informatic methods. Formats have been developed for supply of data in diskette form from the Member States to the Commission. Member States should therefore be able to send their reports to the Commission in the standard format. The further development of such a standard format is most effectively undertaken by the development of guidelines by the Commission.(13) The measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:Article 1Member States are invited to take and analyse samples for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in Annex I, on the basis of the number of samples of each product allocated to them in Annex II, reflecting as appropriate, national, Community and third country share of the Member State's market.For at least one pesticide possibly posing an acute risk, one of the products should be subjected to individual analysis of the individual units in the laboratory sample.Two samples of an appropriate number of units should be taken, where possible the produce of a single producer; if in the first, laboratory sample a detectable level of the pesticide is found, the units of the second sample should be analysed individually. In 2002 this should include at least one of the following combinations: aldicarb/potatoes, aldicarb/bananas, oxydemeton-methyl/spinach, chlorpropham/potatoes and phosmet/pears.Article 2Member States are invited to report the results for the part of the specific exercise allocated for 2002 in Annex I by 31 August 2003, indicating the analytical methods used and reporting levels achieved, in accordance with the quality control procedures set out in the Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis.The report should be produced in a format - including the electronic format - conforming to the Working Document for guidance to the Member States with regard to implementation of Commission recommendations concerning coordinated Community monitoring programmes, set out in Annex III to Commission Recommendation 1999/333/EC(8).Article 3Member States are invited to send to the Commission and to all other Member States, by 31 August 2002, all the information as required by Article 7(3) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(3) of Directive 90/642/EEC concerning the 2001 monitoring exercise to ensure, at least by check sampling, compliance with maximum pesticide residue levels including:(a) the results of their national programmes concerning pesticides listed in the Annexes II of Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC, in relation to harmonised levels and, where these have not yet been fixed at Community level, in relation to the national levels in force;(b) information on their laboratories quality control procedures and, in particular, information concerning aspects of the guidelines concerning Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis which they have not been able to apply or have had difficulty in applying;(c) information on accreditation in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Directive 93/99/EEC (including type of accreditation, accreditation body and copy of accreditation certificate) of the laboratories carrying out the analyses;(d) information about the proficiency tests and ring tests in which the laboratory has participated.Article 4Member States are invited to send to the Commission, by 30 September 2002, their intended national programme for monitoring maximum pesticide residue levels fixed by Directives 90/642/EEC and 86/362/EEC for the year 2003.This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 27 December 2001.For the CommissionDavid ByrneMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 221, 7.8.1986, p. 37.(2) OJ L 208, 1.8.2001, p. 36.(3) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 71.(4) OJ L 78, 29.3.2000, p. 7.(5) Codex Alimentarius, Pesticide Residues in Foodstuffs, Rome 1994, ISBN 92-5-203271-1; Vol. 2, page 372.(6) Doc. No SANCO/3103/2000 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/ph_ps/pest/index_en.htm).(7) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 14.(8) OJ L 128, 21.5.1999, p. 25.ANNEX IPesticide/product combinations to be monitored in the specific exercise set out in Article 1 of the Recommendation>TABLE>(a) Pears, bananas, beans (fresh or frozen), potatoes, carrots, oranges/mandarines, peaches/nectarins, spinach (fresh or frozen).(b) Cauliflower, peppers, wheat, aubergines, rice, cucumber, head cabbage, peas (fresh/frozen, withoud pod).(c) Apples, tomatoes, lettuce, grapes, strawberries, leek, orange juice, rye/oats.ANNEX IINumber of samples of each product to be taken by each Member State, in the coordinated Community monitoring programme for 2002>TABLE>