COSTA RICA: POTENTIAL REFORM TO THE LAW ON CANNABIS FOR MEDICINAL AND THERAPEUTIC USE AND HEMP FOR FOOD AND INDUSTRIAL USE. Nº10.113

 

Bill No. 22,964 is pending in congress to amend the recently approved law on cannabis for medicinal and therapeutic use and hemp for food and industrial use. The reform is motivated by the partial veto of the executive power that modified article 5 of bill No. 21,388.

Article 5, which was initially approved, interpreted hemp cultivation as comparable to other traditional crops, considering that it lacks psychoactive effects such as those of cannabis. Therefore, Bill No. 21,388 did not require special licenses for the cultivation of hemp, remaining subject to the licenses and permits required for any productive agricultural or agro-industrial activity.

In exercising the veto, the executive power raised health and safety concerns regarding the free cultivation of hemp. Therefore, said article was modified to include the requirement of licenses for the cultivation, production, and commercialization of the hemp plant. The proposed reform seeks to modify article 5 again to eliminate the requirement of licenses for this type of cultivation. The rationale for the proposed reform is that the modification caused by the veto created inconsistencies in the law and a regulatory vacuum. In this regard, the law requires licenses, but does not regulate them in any way, unlike the licenses for medicinal and therapeutic cannabis, which are included in the law.

🍽️ NOVEDAD EDITORIAL: DIETAS: Una Inmersión Rápida de Abel MARINÉ FONT (Autor)

En nuestra sociedad actual en la que muchos, no todos, pueden decidir qué, cuándo y cuánto comen, la demanda de información sobre alimentos y dietas es creciente, y no siempre está guiada por la racionalidad y criterios científicos, sino por percepciones emocionales, influidas por modas y mitos en torno a la alimentación. Es evidente que los resultados de la investigación científica, y más en temas como los alimentarios, que tienen impacto social e interés para la salud de la población, no se pueden quedar en los estrictos límites de los expertos y sus publicaciones especializadas. El objetivo de este libro es contribuir a la difusión al público en general de los hechos y criterios que deben regir la elección y formas de consumo de lo que comemos. Todo ello presentado de manera clara, rigurosa, sin simplificaciones y con los debidos matices. El contenido incluye las bases científicas de una alimentación correcta, la influencia de los tratamientos tecnológicos y culinarios en la composición y el valor nutritivo de los alimentos, la dieta mediterránea como un modelo conveniente de alimentación de proximidad, la alimentación a seguir según la edad y en situaciones o ámbitos determinados, las dietas adecuadas en diversas patologías, las alimentaciones no convencionales o alternativas, y los nuevos alimentos o dietas.

Información: 

https://www.tibidaboediciones.com/productdisplay/dietas

 

Agri-food: Unfair Commercial Practices Act curbs purchasing power; more opportunities for sustainability agreements

 

Competition law and the agri-food sector do not always go together well. The Authority for Consumers & Markets [ACM (NL)] has fined various companies in the agri-food sector in the past, e.g. in the sweet pepper, onion sets and onion sectors, for violating the cartel prohibition. Sustainability initiatives such as Kip van Morgen also failed when they ran into a negative ACM ruling based on the cartel prohibition. ACM has paid no specific attention in recent decades to the excessive purchasing power of retailers. But the relationship between competition law and the agri-food sector is changing rapidly. Developments such as Paris Agreement, the Urgenda rulings and the Glasgow Climate Pact necessitate (sector-wide) cooperation in the food supply chain in order to fast-track certain climate and sustainability objectives. Will competition law go with the flow? The (excessive) purchasing power of retailers in this sector is also increasingly the focus of attention. What effect will the new legislation, such as the Wet oneerlijke handelspraktijken landbouw- en voedselvoorzieningsketen (Unfair Commercial Practices in the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain Act – the “UCP Act”), have in this regard? The answers to these questions, the trends in competition law in the agri-food sector, and the assessment of sustainability initiatives are addressed below.

The UCP Act: will ACM take enforcement action?

The UCP Act entered into force on 1 November 2021. The UPC Act aims to strengthen the position of farmers, market gardeners and fishermen in relation to larger buyers, such as purchasing groups. ACM is in charge of enforcing the UCP Act. If buyers fail to comply with the UCP Act, food suppliers may file an (anonymous) report with ACM. ACM may impose an order subject to a penalty or a fine on a buyer (such as a retailer) that is guilty of violating the UCP Act.

The UCP Act contains two lists of unfair commercial practices (UCPs). The black list is a list of UCPs that are considered unlawful by definition. The UCPs on the grey list are conditionally unlawful. In other words, such practices are permitted only if they have been clearly and unambiguously agreed in advance in writing between the supplier in question and the buyer. More information can be found in this article and this blog. Since 1 November 2021, the UCP Act applies to all new agreements between suppliers and buyers that fall within the scope of the UCP Act. All agreements entered into before 1 November 2021 must be brought in line with the UCP Act by 15 April 2022 at the latest. Market parties therefore still have some time to amend their existing contracts where necessary. ACM is informing market parties about the UCP Act and its enforcement. The question whether the Act will be a success greatly depends on ACM’s approach. See in this regard: Will ACM use the Unfair Commercial Practices in the Agricultural and Food Supply Act to tackle the purchasing power of retailers?

Where enforcement of the UCP Act comes down to sector expertise, ACM has not been idle in recent years. In 2017, ACM was instructed in the Coalition Agreement to investigate and, where necessary, tackle unfair commercial practices and distorted market power in the food supply chain. ACM has therefore been conducting a survey for over two years now in the form of the Agro-Nutri Monitors. ACM published its (second) Agro-Nutri Monitor 2021 in November. More information can be found in this blog. We previously also wrote about the Agro-Nutri Monitor 2020. ACM reported in November 2021 that its survey had shown that the main obstacle to more sustainable agriculture is the higher price of sustainable products. According to ACM, many consumers are unwilling to pay for such products if a cheaper, regularly produced alternative is available.

New UCP Act disputes committee

With the introduction of the UCP Act, a new disputes committee is being set up in the Netherlands. The committee will be in charge of resolving disputes between suppliers and customers relating to the UCP Act. For the supplier, the disputes committee should serve as a low-threshold alternative to civil proceedings or the filing of a complaint with ACM. The question is whether the disputes committee will have the desired effect. During a pilot within the framework of the Fair Practice Code, not a single complaint was received from a supplier. The possibility for suppliers to complain anonymously, promised in the draft regulations for the disputes committee, is inadequate according to suppliers: a supplier can submit an anonymous complaint only via an authorised representative, and the supplier must first file a complaint with the buyer itself. The legislature will have to clarify this issue in the final regulations.

More scope for sector-wide sustainability initiatives

It has been debated for years that competition law is too often a Waterloo for sustainability initiatives: see here, here, here and here. Market-wide agreements are usually highly desirable or even essential in order to stimulate sustainability. In practice, sustainability initiatives often appear or prove to be difficult to fit into the competition-law framework. Sustainability initiatives that the ACM (or the NMa) has assessed against the cartel prohibition in the past are a mixed bag. ACM blocked most agreements on limiting catches and making shrimp fishing more sustainable. The Kip van Morgen initiative referred to above, also failed ACM’s test. That did not apply to an agreement to reduce the use of antibiotics in livestock farming (the Den Bosch Agreement) and sector-wide agreements to replace the castration of piglets without anaesthesia with anaesthetised castration.

The question whether sustainability initiatives are consistent with the cartel prohibition set out in Article 6 of the Mededingingswet (Dutch Competition Act) and Article 101 TFEU is usually answered on the basis of the exception ground in Article 6(3) of the Dutch Competition Act or Article 101(3) TFEU. That exception ground is also referred to as the efficiency defence. In recent years, it has become clear that ACM strictly assesses the efficiency defence in sustainability initiatives. That was the case with shrimp fishery, but also with Kip van Morgen. In sum, ACM accepts the efficiency defence only if the welfare of consumers is demonstrably increased. One of the reasons for ACM’s critical approach is probably its desire to prevent what is known as the greenwashing of cartel agreements.

At the same time, there is a risk of legitimate cooperation to achieve sustainability goals not getting off the ground either, or less quickly, because competition law is considered too great an obstacle. There has been a remarkable development in this regard. In many cases it is now easier to quickly demonstrate that sustainability initiatives in the agri-food sector are consistent with the cartel prohibition. The application of competition law to the agri-food sector is regulated in Regulation 1308/2013 (the “CMO Regulation”). The CMO Regulation also regulates practices that are excluded from the application of the cartel prohibition. Since December 2021, the statutory framework for the assessment of sustainability initiatives in the agri-food sector has changed at the European level. The exceptions to the cartel prohibition in the CMO Regulation have been expanded. Article 210a was added to the CMO Regulation on the basis of Regulation 2021/2117. That article provides:

Vertical and horizontal initiatives for sustainability

Article 101(1) TFEU shall not apply to agreements, decisions and concerted practices of producers of agricultural products that relate to the production of or trade in agricultural products and that aim to apply a sustainability standard higher than mandated by Union or national law, provided that those agreements, decisions and concerted practices only impose restrictions of competition that are indispensable to the attainment of that standard.

Under Article 210a of the CMO Regulation, sustainability initiatives are now exempt from the cartel prohibition in all EU Member States, subject to certain conditions. This applies to both horizontal initiatives and agreements (between competitors) and vertical initiatives and agreements (between different links in the chain). Initiatives that are eligible for the exception must be aimed at:

• Environmental objectives, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, the sustainable use and protection of landscapes, water and soil, the transition to a circular economy, including the reduction of food waste, pollution prevention and control, and the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems;
• The production of agricultural products in ways that reduce the use of pesticides and manage risks resulting from such use, or that reduce the danger of antimicrobial resistance in agricultural production; and
• Animal health and animal welfare.

Under Article 210a of the CMO Regulation, it is no longer necessary to first put forward an efficiency defence in order to declare certain sustainability initiatives consistent with the cartel prohibition: because certain cases are exempted from the cartel prohibition under Article 210a of the CMO Regulation, benchmarking against the criteria of Article 6(3) of the Dutch Competition Act/Article 101(3) TFEU (the efficiency defence) is no longer necessary in those cases. This will save the parties involved a great deal of time and money. The Commission will publish guidelines explaining the conditions of Article 210a of the CMO Regulation by 8 December 2023. The Commission has invited market participants in the agri-food sector to share their experiences with the Commission. Stakeholders have until 23 May 2022 to do so.

Examples from Germany

In Germany, a number of sustainability initiatives were recently assessed under the cartel prohibition. The German Competition Authority (“Bka”), for instance, recently approved two sustainability initiatives, although it did consider another initiative to be in violation of the cartel prohibition.

Bananas and minimum wages

On 18 January 2022, the Bka ruled that there were no competition law objections to an initiative in which German retailers set common standards for wages in the banana sector. According to the Bka, it is important in this regard that (i) no sensitive competitive information is exchanged and (ii) no compulsory minimum prices or are introduced.

Animal welfare

That same day the Bka decided that the Tierwohl initiative, in which four large German supermarkets agreed to introduce an animal welfare supplement for pigs and poultry, was not in violation of the cartel prohibition. The supplement is linked to criteria relating to the conditions in which the animals are kept by the Tierwohl participants. It serves as a reward for pig and poultry farmers that improve these conditions. Although the supplement is factored into the price that consumers pay for the meat, the Bka has so far tolerated the initiative, in light of the pioneering nature of the initiative. The Bka did, however, state in its decision that more room must be given to competitors in the future, because animal welfare is increasingly a factor that consumers take into account.

Dairy price supplements

One week later it became apparent that not all price supplements presented as sustainability initiatives are consistent with the cartel prohibition. In late January, the Bka ruled that a system of price supplements for dairy products was in breach of the cartel prohibition. The price supplements served to compensate for what Agrardialog Milch considered the unprofitable price of raw milk. The supplement was to become part of a new financial model aimed at increasing and stabilising the price of raw milk across the sector. According to the Bka, these price supplements are not permissible at present, because sustainability standards do not play a role in this new financial model. Moreover, the model allegedly does not provide for “specific criteria for the production of raw milk, taking sustainability aspects into account”. This is where the Tierwohl initiative, which does contain specific sustainability criteria, differs from Agrardialog Milch’s raw milk price supplement.

Remarkably, the Bka has not (yet) assessed the above three initiatives directly against Article 210a of the CMO Regulation. This appears to be a missed opportunity, since that article had already entered into force by the time the Bka took its decisions. In its Tierwohl decision, the Bka did, however, announce that it would assess the initiative against Article 210a of the CMO Regulation in future.

Will competition authorities provide guidance?

We can imagine that competition authorities (including ACM) will be willing and able in future to provide guidance to companies on sustainability initiatives and the application of Article 210a of the CMO Regulation; all the more so because they too are aware that it will most likely be months, if not more than a year, before the Commission publishes its guidance on Regulation 2021/2117, whereas the climate crisis is definitely a hot topic. And ACM cannot really refuse such requests for guidance: it has repeatedly stated that it encourages sustainability initiatives and wishes to support companies in that respect. In its draft Sustainability Initiatives Guidelines, ACM noted that it “supports companies in their assessment of sustainability agreements”. Be that as it may, Article 210a of the CMO Regulation creates a new scope to quickly exempt sector-wide sustainability agreements (that apply in all EU Member States) from the cartel prohibition. That is in any event good news for the achievement of climate objectives, among other things.

Follow Maverick Advocaten on Twitter and LinkedIn

Pregunta Parlamentaria (UE) de Geert Bourgeois: El Informe titulado "The Benefits of Brexit"

 

• 15 DE FEBRERO DE 2022 -  [P-000659/2022][*]

El Gobierno del Reino Unido ha publicado un informe titulado ‘The Benefits of Brexit'. Si bien establece pocas medidas específicas, anuncia la ambición de convertirse en una superpotencia científica en los campos de la tecnología cuántica, la IA, los medicamentos, etcétera.

Está planeando lograrlo, por un lado, alejándose de las normas de la UE (regulación financiera, ensayos clínicos, subsidios agrícolas, contratación pública, legislación de datos, etcétera) y, por el otro, tomando la iniciativa en el establecimiento de estándares y comprometiendo en sectores emergentes no sujetos a regulación, como la edición del genoma, la IA, etcétera.

1. ¿Ha analizado la Comisión este informe en detalle o tiene previsto hacerlo?

2. ¿Qué propuestas constructivas contenidas en el informe tratará de aplicar la propia Comisión para garantizar la competitividad de la UE?

3. ¿Advierte la Comisión alguna amenaza para la competitividad de la UE?

 

Respuesta de la Presidenta von der Leyen en nombre de la Comisión Europea (12 de abril de 2022):

«1. El Acuerdo de Comercio y Cooperación entre la UE y el Reino Unido está diseñado para proteger los intereses comunes de ambas partes y garantizar una competencia leal al incluir disposiciones para garantizar la igualdad de condiciones, en particular en lo que respecta al control de subsidios, impuestos, normativas laborales y sociales, así como como el medio ambiente y el clima.

Para garantizar el respeto de estas disposiciones, la Comisión, junto con la Delegación de la Unión Europea en el Reino Unido, supervisa la evolución de la legislación del Reino Unido junto con los cambios legislativos en el Reino Unido. La Comisión ha analizado detalladamente el informe al que se refiere Su Señoría. Cabe señalar que algunas de las áreas cubiertas por el informe, como la inteligencia artificial, van más allá del ámbito de aplicación del Acuerdo de Comercio y Cooperación.

2. Si bien las reformas llevadas a cabo por terceros países pueden servir de inspiración para nuestras políticas, la UE desarrolla su competitividad siguiendo su propia agenda proactiva, liderando el camino en la transición energética, asegurando una UE apta para la era digital y defendiendo un comercio dinámico, abierto y justo, el multilateralismo y un orden global basado en reglas, entre otras prioridades.

3. Si bien el Reino Unido es libre de decidir su política regulatoria, sigue sujeto a sus obligaciones en virtud del Acuerdo de Comercio y Cooperación y el Acuerdo de Retiro. La Comisión se mantiene alerta para garantizar que las empresas de la UE no sufran una desventaja competitiva desleal.».

 

El Informe puede consultarse en: 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1054643/benefits-of-brexit.pdf

---

[*] Traducción no oficial. Lengua original: holandés.

 

SCLA 26th GLOBAL FORUM: PRACTICING LAW IN THE FACE OF MILITARY CONFRONTATION – CHALLENGES FOR LAWYERS UNDER SEVERE CIRCUMSTANCES

 

Information & Registration:

forum@sclalaw.cn                                                          tianze.zhang@scla.world

SCLA 25th GLOBAL FORUM: PRACTICING LAW IN THE FACE OF MILITARY CONFRONTATION – CHALLENGES FOR LAWYERS UNDER SEVERE CIRCUMSTANCES

 

INTRODUCTION’

The military conflict in Ukraine is not only a humanitarian drama, but also has substantial impact on business. The sanctions and counteractions result in a virtual stop of trade. Assets are being seized, prices for raw material have skyrocketed, supply chains are again disrupted. All these developments are posing a huge challenge for lawyers as well when advising their international clients, acting as corporate counsel, or exercising a function in the judiciary or a public authority. What is the impact of these developments on contracts, what is the effect of sanctions are only two of many questions we want to discuss to contribute to assist members of the legal profession to react properly to the new situation.

 AGENDA

13:00-13:15 CET

 

MY REFLECTION FROM MALVINAS/FALKLAND SOUTH ATLANTIC CONFLICT

Juan Javier Negri (Argentina), Founder of Negri & Pueyrredon Abogados

Commentator: Luis González Vaqué (Spain), Former Directorate General for Internal Market and Services, European Commission

 

13:15-13:30 CET

SANCTIONS REGIME AND ARBITRATION CLAIMS

Toby Cadman(UK) , Joint Head of Chambers, |Guernica 37 Chambers

Commentator: Oleksandr Aleksyeyenko(Ukraine), Partner at Nobles

13:30-13:55 CET

THE RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFRONTATION, SANCTIONS AND THE WORLD TRADE SYSTEM: IS THERE AN INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE IN A WORLD OF MULTILATERALISM THAT LACKS PERSPECTIVE

Frank Altemöller (Germany), Research Fellow at the Institute of Customs and International Trade Law

Commentator: Xiaobing Tang(China), Former Senior Counselor of WTO

 

13:55-14:10 CET

THE IMPACT OF SANCTIONS ON AFRICAN TRADE AND COMMERCE AND CHALLENGES FOR LAWYERS.

Uche Val Obi (Nigeria), Managing Partner of Alliance Law Firm

Commentator: Penghe Yan(China), Managing partner of Zhongyin Law Firm

 

14:10-15:00 CET

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: IS THE WAR A FORCE MAJEURE EVENT?

Chair: Hermann Knott(Germany), Partner of KUNZ Law

Panelists: John Leong (Singapore), Independent Arbitrator; Pawel Sikora(Poland), Partner at KKG Law; Maximilian Han (China), Partner at Jinmao Law Firm; Godson Ugochukwu (Nigeria), Managing Partner at Fortress Solicitor; Dima Alexandrova，Partner at Zafirov and Alexandrova Law Firm

Information & Registration:

forum@sclalaw.cn                                                        tianze.zhang@scla.world

FOOD LAW - China: Talking about the National Food Security Standard

 

National Food Security Standard (hereinafter referred to as the “National Standard”) is crucial to anyone who works in the food industry. However, many people are not clear about the classification of National Standard, which is important to foreign exporters.

Let’s start with the Food Safety Law, which is the fundamental law of food safety. According to the Food Safety Law, Chapter 3 Food Safety Standards, Article 25: 

Food safety standards shall be standards for mandatory execution. No mandatory food standards other than food safety standards may be developed. 

Article 26. Food safety standards shall contain: 

✔ limits of pathogenic microorganisms, pesticide residues, residues from veterinary medicines, biological toxins, heavy metals, and other pollutants, and other substances hazardous to human health in food, food additives, and food-related products; 

✔ varieties, range of application, and dosages of food additives; 

✔ nutritional composition requirements for staple and supplementary food exclusively for infants and other particular groups of people 

✔ requirements for labels, marks, and instructions related to health, nutrition, and other food safety requirements; 

✔ hygienic requirements for the process of food production or trade; 

✔ quality requirements related to food safety; 

✔ food inspection methods and procedures related to food safety; and 

✔ others which need to be developed into food safety standards. 

Obviously, the upper rank law has provided a clear position and scope for the national standard of food safety, so next step we will explain in detail the specific classification of national standards. 

The first category is common criteria 

Common criteria refer to standards that are widely used and have broad guiding significance as the basis of other standards within a certain range. 

In another word, all food products, no matter what category they belong to, shall comply with the common criteria. 

For example, if there is no corresponding food product standard for a food product imported from abroad, you can find the corresponding common criteria according to the food category of the product and comply with the safety requirements for the food category in the standard. 

In this way, the national standard problem in food import can be solved. There are 13 common criteria  as the list below:

Among the 13 general standards, the following standards are most commonly used:

✓ General standard for the labelling of prepackaged foods GB 7718-2011 

✓ Standard for nutrition labelling of prepackaged foods GB 28050-2011 

✓ Standard for use of food additives GB 2760-2014 

✓ Limits of contaminants in foods GB 2762-2017 

✓ Limit of pathogen in prepackaged foods GB 29921-2021 

Due to space reasons, the content of the standard will not be explained in detail here. Readers can search about the detailed standard and find the explanation by the professional practitioners of food regulation in accordance with specific situation. 

It is hereby noted that clarified that the use of “most” and other superlatives in this article is to impress the readers and not the absolute words. 

The second category is standard of food products 

A total of 70 national standards are formulated for major food categories (important to people's livelihood), such as various dairy products, rice and flour products, meat products, candy products, seasoning products, etc. 

The third category is special dietary food standards, which is used for specific consumer groups such as infant formula and other special food. Relevant national standards shall be abided by. There are 10 standards in total:

The fourth category is quality specifications and relevant standards of food additives 

This category has the most national standards, 646 in total. All the food additives shall abide by this kind of standard, which will not be listed here due to space reasons. 

The fifth category is quality specification and standard of food nutrition fortifier

There are 53 standards in total. All the food nutrition fortifier shall abide by this kind of standard, which will not be listed here due to space reasons. 

The sixth category is food related product standards 

There are 15 standards in total. Food related products refer to food packaging materials, containers, detergents, disinfectants, etc. and there are 3 important standards: 

➤ detergent GB 14930.1-2015 

➤ disinfectants GB 14930.2-2012 

➤ General safety requirements on food contact materials and articles GB 4806.1-2016 

The seventh category is production and operation specifications and standards 

There are 34 standards in total, which shall be abided by during the production and operation of the food. There are two important standards:

➤ General hygienic standard for food production GB 14881-2013 

➤ Code of hygienic practice in food business process GB 31621-2014 

The remaining standards are various test methods, including 234 physical and chemical test methods, 32 microbiological test methods, 29 toxicological test methods and procedures, 120 pesticide residue test methods and 74 veterinary drug residue test methods.

Conclusion 

The above analysis is based on the announcement of the Food Safety Standards Monitoring and Evaluation Department of National Health Commission in February 2022, which is the latest official announcement. It is hoped that the popularization of science will help nonprofessionals of food regulation to have a preliminary understanding of national standards of food safety. 

Leon Zheng 

                                            HFG Law&Intellectual Property

E-MAIL 

lzheng@hfgip.com

                  

  

Parlamento Europeo: CONDICIONES ASOCIADAS A LA INICIATIVA ‘WIFI4EU’ PARA PEQUEÑOS MUNICIPIOS

 

• 17 DE FEBRERO DE 2022 - Pregunta del diputado PASCAL ARIMONT – [E-000683/2022][1]

 

En el marco de la iniciativa WIFI4EU, la Comisión proporciona a los municipios ganadores un bono de 15.000 € que, sin embargo, viene con ciertas condiciones. 

Los comentarios de mi circunscripción dejan claro que a los municipios más pequeños les resulta difícil utilizar este bono, ya que los costes totales de instalación y funcionamiento de los puntos de acceso Wi-Fi no son sostenibles a largo plazo. 

Otros municipios afirman lo mismo: la instalación y el mantenimiento son tan costosos que los costes superan los beneficios. Por ejemplo, la mejor cotización para la instalación y el mantenimiento durante tres años de la cantidad requerida de puntos de acceso Wi-Fi (debe haber una proporción determinada de puntos de acceso interiores y exteriores) fue de alrededor de 92.000 €, IVA incluido.

1. ¿Ha recibido la Comisión comentarios similares sobre la iniciativa WIFI4EU de otros municipios?  

2. ¿Piensa la Comisión relajar las condiciones para que los municipios, especialmente los más pequeños, a los que se les ha concedido un bono puedan seguir realizando sus proyectos sin tener que incurrir en tales gastos?

 

Respuesta del Sr. Breton en nombre de la Comisión Europea (30 de marzo de 2022):

«Hasta la fecha, más de 6.000 municipios han instalado sus redes WiFi4EU de conformidad con las condiciones del Acuerdo de subvención. Los gastos de capital (CAPEX) de cada instalación de red se financiaron con un bono de suma global de 15.000 €.

Se llevó a cabo un estudio ad-hoc para establecer el número de Puntos de Acceso (AP) que podrían financiarse con los 15.000 € del monto del bono. 

El número mínimo de APs a instalar se fijó entre 10 (exteriores) y 15 (interiores), dependiendo de la combinación de cada tipo. De media, las redes WiFi4EU instaladas hasta ahora incluyen casi 13 APs cada una. Este número alcanza hasta 19,5 APs en las 124 redes instaladas en Bélgica. 

Durante las campañas de participación de la Comisión, un número limitado de municipios informó sobre dificultades para desplegar sus redes por motivos de coste. Sí se hizo referencia otros temas a los que la Comisión ha prestado la mayor atención posible.

Como se explica en las Preguntas frecuentes de WiFi4EU[2], hay espacio para cierta flexibilidad para abordar algunos problemas de costes que pueden encontrar los municipios pequeños.

Hay cuestiones planteadas a menudo en las preguntas recibidas relevantes para consultar sobre el arrendamiento de equipos con opción a compra (FAQ punto 5.2), sobre el tipo y las tarifas de conexión a Internet (FAQ punto 5.7), sobre la falta de ubicaciones para los puntos de acceso, incluida la interpretación de que los beneficiarios pueden compartir sus APs con uno o más municipios vecinos (FAQ punto 9.2.3) y en la actualización de la red Wi-Fi pública ya existente (FAQ punto 9.2.6).».

 

 

---

[1] Traducción no oficial. Lengua original: alemán.

[2] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/wifi4eu-faqs