Cenedella.de

Patient Advocate since 1977.


Leave a comment

Germany’s largest legal cannabis plantation – by VICE Magazine

https://www.vice.com/de/article/qvjge5/weed-aus-dem-atombunker-dieser-typ-baut-deutschlands-grosste-legale-cannabis-plantage

http://www.bunker-ppd.de/

Germany’s largest legal cannabis plantation
Tim Geyer
Oct. 17 2017, 3:20 pm
Because of grass dealings, Christoph Roßner had already been in prison for five months. Today he works with Bavarian politicians.

This is not really a loose work place, even if grass is to be cultivated, says Christoph Roßner. The Atombunker, before which he stands, is squeezed between car parks and fields in the Allgäu countryside like a stranded oil tank. Here, from the former Fliegerhorst Memmingerberg NATO would have led the nuclear counterattack, had the Cold War escalated. Today the entrepreneur wants to breed cannabis in the bunker. Green haze instead of black rain – within sight of a federal police station and with the blessing of the Bavarian government. Since the beginning of the year, cannabis is legal on prescription in Germany and Rossner’s sentiment is that of a brewer’s owner after the end of the prohibition: “We have the chance to become one of the biggest players in the international cannabis market.”

Alone for 2015, the German Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Abuse (DBDD) counts almost five million Germans who have consumed cannabis at least once during the last twelve months. The dark figure should be even higher. Activists and businessmen have taken this first step towards legalization. Christoph Roßner is both. And also looks like this: black jacket over black sweater, the gray hair tamed to the horse tail. Business in the front, party in the back.

One of the many lock gates between the individual bunkers
From the war machine to the grass factory

The bunker, a 50-meter-long, 15-meter high colossus, with its aerial storms acts like a medieval fortress. From 1985, the Luftwaffe soldiers of the Jagdbombersgeschwader 34 were sitting here, servicing the control systems for the nearby rocket silos. “This bunker is safer than a nuclear waste disposal site, but we want to grow plants here,” says the 47-year-old. He has previously registered with the neighboring Federal Police Station on the visit of the journalists.

The Panzertor groans aside. 175 tons of hardened steel, eight meters wide, nearly one meter thick. A siren howls like a submarine on a dive. Through the opening one reaches the actual bunker, which surrounds the outer wall as the reactor coherent of Chernobyl. Then another lock door, another 30 centimeters of steel. Later, 15 employees of Roßner’s company Bunker PPD, which he wants to adjust, will change the street clothes against overalls without bags and scan their fingerprints. The few, the income, will be nothing to take with. Roßner leads past former team rooms and the radio center, a five-meter-thick steel-concrete ceiling above us. You go ducked, even though you do not have to.

But no matter how many nights Roßner is working on his business plans, in the end others decide: the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices and the Bundespiumstelle, which is subordinate to him. Anyone who wants to produce or use drugs in Germany must either talk to them or seek a good lawyer. But once the TÜV seal of the Panzertür has expired, once the officials discover a tiny mistake in a request: the bureaucrats are editing Roßner, the changing Würgreiz for CSU politicians, so meticulously as if they Franz Josef Strauss’ last will.

Where the radio had previously been monitored, a cannabis laboratory could soon be available
From activist to cannabis entrepreneur

Roßner knows this. For the last three decades he has been working on the legalization of cannabis. Two key experiences are the reason: at 17 he smokes his first joint. He notes: Kiffen helps him to curb his hyperactivity. A year later a steel carrier crushed his left shoulder during his training as an industrial mechanic. Against the chronic pain smokes Roßner cannabis. To this day, now on recipe. “If you like, I’m just tight,” he says. In 1994, a friend of Roßner, who suffers from epilepsy, finds out that marijuana dampens his attacks. Roessner’s sister also suffered from epilepsy. For them, this knowledge comes too late. Two years before, she committed suicide. “I could have helped her,” says Rossner.

From this moment on, he is on a mission: He is worried about marijuana to help others, he says. “Illegal research” he calls this. At that time, as today, cannabis is prohibited by law in Germany. It is only since 1 March 2017 that doctors can prescribe – even without the hard-to-obtain exemption. Although in 1994, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that a small quantity of cannabis can be carried with no prescription – depending on the federal state, between five and ten grams – this verdict does not, however, protect against criminal prosecution. This is what the courts alone decide. Roessner also knew about the risk, especially in Bavaria, When it is rumored that he is running a kind of private hemp pharmacy, more and more people are coming. Rheumatics, neurodermatitis, chemotherapy patients. And some policemen.

If at any time the electricity should fail, Roßner can take advantage of four diesel generators to supply his cannabis lantern with light
Roßner is sentenced: two years and one month. He spends five months in prison and four in therapy. It’s been 17 years now. When he rages, he knocks again at his doorstep. Still, people who have pain are coming. Roßner does not do any illegal business, he continues to believe in the medical benefits of cannabis. Together with the Chair of Chemistry at the Technical University of Munich and the University of British Columbia, he is currently preparing a study to investigate the effects of the most important medicinal hemp varieties and to develop quality standards for them. 150 patients he wants to provide cannabis from his bunker. Will the study and the necessary hemp cultivation be approved, this would be his first decisive step to enter the medical cannabis market. The study is intended to prove that he, the ex-prisoner, is serious.

Politicians, investors and business bosses listen to him

By working with the universities, Roßner hopes that the newly established state-owned cannabis agency will choose him to produce state-certified grass. The agency is to provide patients with marijuana from Germany and is looking for producers all over Europe. In addition to Rossner, other German entrepreneurs are also applying, for example SensHemp from Berlin and Hanf AG from Hamburg. 2,000 kilograms per year, the agency estimates, would have to grow on German plantings in 2021 and 2022 to supply all patients. Roßner believes that German patients need six times a year: over 12 tonnes of grass. If no one has to apply for an exemption, but only needs a prescription, more patients will take this step, he is sure. In addition, it would not be worth it to build a plant worth several million euros. But without permission for the study, he could set up his bunker to a very unpleasant country house.

Plantation air could soon flow through the ventilation towers
Just a strong CSU conservative helps him with his plan. Franz Josef Pschierer, State Secretary in the Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, will bring him together with entrepreneurs and politicians from Bavaria in 2016. Roßner tells them about the unused economic potential, possible tax revenues and savings in the police and courts. “Without the help of the Bavarian government, no one would listen to me,” he says. He is now planning his cannabis breeding plant with ThyssenKrupp – and is holding talks with internationally active hedge funds. If they invest in it, the Free State of Bavaria could subsidize its business with about a quarter of a million euros. From tax money. Marijuana sponsored by Horst Seehofer.

In many places in the bunker the soldiers have left something behind
While Roßner sketched his battle plan for the next months, we descend deeper into the airtight crypt. There is neither mobile phone reception nor spiderwebs. Comic paintings on the walls testify to what the soldiers were busy with when they were bored to wait for the Third World War. In one room there are vault chambers, large as overseas containers. Here the mother plants could grow. “Lamps clean, connect ventilation, let’s go,” says Roßner, “more perfect conditions than here you will find nowhere.” A high-security laboratory is to move into the former squadron headquarters. Here, chemists could clone potent cannabis varieties. Next to it stands an industrial furnace, in which former toxins were destroyed at 900 degrees. In the future, the most serious of these will be burned. A few security doors: the space for the cuttings. “We start with 80 different varieties,” Roßner says self-confidently, as if he had the approval already.

In these cabinets Roßner wants to breed young plants
Race with the Dutch

Sometimes Christoph Rossner would ask the same as the early fans of Cherry Coke or anal whitening: When will the backward-looking Germans finally understand what the Americans have long been celebrating? In 29 out of 50 US states , medical cannabis has been allowed or grass has been fully legalized. In 2016, the industry generated sales of 6.7 billion US dollars . Until it is so far in Germany, Rossner will still have to smoke a few blunts on the recipe.

At the beginning of the year, he was sitting with his lawyers to prepare a lawsuit against the Federal Institute for Drugs, he tells us as we step out of the darkness of the bunker. The agency has asked potential medical producers that they have already grown, processed and delivered at least 50 kilograms over the last three years. How is he to apply, if exactly that in Germany so far was illegal, Roßner curses. It is not easy to get a mission in Germany for something that does not really exist at all.

Meanwhile, the authorities want to improve – a small victory, but Rossner is running out of time. The Dutch company Sensi Seeds systematically purchases small cannabis producers in the USA and is now pushing into the German market. Roßner does not want to be bought up. His research project will start in March, followed by commercial operations. He wants to make money himself and make the world a bit better with nothing but a few plants from a Bavarian atomic bomb.

Follow VICE on Facebook , Instagram and Snapchat .

Advertisements


Leave a comment

What Is Going On With Germany’s Cannabis Bid? By Marguerite Arnold

A number of setbacks, controversies and lawsuits keep the German cannabis market in limbo.

Germany is proceeding down the path to officially grow its own medical cannabis crops. Medical use became legal this year, along with a federal mandate for cheap access. That means that public health insurance companies, which cover 90% of Germans, are now firmly on the hook if not front line of the cannabis efficacy issue. As such, Germany’s medical market is potentially one of the most lucrative cannabis markets in the world, with a total dollar amount to at least challenge, if not rival, even California’s recreational market. Some say Canada’s too.

However, before “home grow” enthusiasts get too excited, this legislative move was an attempt to stymie everything but commercial, albeit medical production. Not to mention shut off the recreational discussion for at least another four years.

How successful that foray into legalization will be – especially given the chronic shortages now facing patients – are an open question. Not to mention other infrastructural issues – like doctor unfamiliarity with or resistance to prescribing cannabinoids. Or the public insurers’ so-far reluctance to cover it even though now federally mandated to do so.

Regardless, Germany decided to legalize medical use in 2017 and further to begin a sanctioned domestic cultivation for this market. The decision in the Bundestag to legalize the drug was unanimous. And the idea to follow UN regulations to establish this vertical is cautiously conservative but defendable. Very predictably German in other words.

Since then, however, the path has been far from smooth. Much less efficient.

Trouble in Germany’s Medical Cannabis Paradise
In April the government released its tender bid. And no matter how exciting it was to be in the middle of an industry who finally saw a crack of light, there were also clouds to this silver lining that promised early and frequent thunderstorms on the horizon.

By the time the tender bid application was due in June, it was already clear who the top firms were likely to be In fact, by the end of the ICBC conference, which held its first annual gathering in Berlin at the same time the bid tender was announced, the controversy was already bubbling. The requirements of the bid, for a laughably small amount of cannabis (2,000 kg), mandated experience producing high qualities of medical marijuana in a federally legitimate market. By definition that excluded all German hopefuls, and set up Canada and Holland as the only countries who could provide such experience, capital and backlog of crop as the growing gets started.

The grumbling from Germans started then.

However, so did an amazingly public race to gain access to the German market directly – by acquisition or capital expenditures that are not refundable easily (like real estate or even buyouts). The common theme? They were large amounts of money being spent, and made by major Canadian Licensed Producers who had the right qualifications to meet the standards of the bid. In fact, by the time the tender bid application was due in June, it was already clear who the top firms were likely to be. They were the only ones who qualified under the judging qualifications.

And while nobody would commit publicly, news of the final decision was expected by August. Several Canadian LPs even issued press releases stating that they were finalists in the bid. But still no news was forthcoming about the official list.

Delay, Delay and More Delay
A month later, as of September, and there was still no official pronouncement. Nor was anybody talking. BfArM, the regulatory agency that is supervising this rollout as well as the regulation of all narcotic drugs (sort of like a German version of the FDA) has been issuing non-statement statements since the late summer. Aurora, however, one of the top contenders for cultivation here, was quietly issued an ex-im license by both Canadian and German authorities. Publicly, this has been described as an effort to help stem the now chronic cannabis shortage facing patients who attempt to go through legitimate, prescribed channels. On the German side, intriguingly, this appears to be a provisional license. Privately, some wondered if this was the beginning of a backdoor approval process for the top scoring bid applicants for cultivation. Although why that might be remains unclear.

Whispered rumours by industry sources that wish to remain anonymous, have suggested that the entire bid is still hanging in jeopardy. Late in the month, rumours began to fly that there were now lawsuits against the bid process. Nobody had much detail. Not to mention specifics. But CannabisIndustryJournal can now confirm in fact that there have been two lawsuits (so far).

The summary of the complaints? It appears that two parties, filing with the “Bundeskartellamt” (or regulatory office focusing on monopolies and unfair business practices) did not think the bid process or scoring system was fair. And both parties also lost.

But as of mid-October, there is still no public decision on the bids. What gives?

Whispered rumours by industry sources that wish to remain anonymous, have suggested that the entire bid is still hanging in jeopardy. Even though the plaintiffs failed, some have suggested that the German government might force a complete redo. Others hint that it will likely be slightly revised to be more inclusive but the regulatory standards must remain. If a redo is in the cards, will the German government decide to increase the total amount of yearly cannabis to be delivered? At this point, it is only calling for 2,000 kg per year by 2019. And that, as everyone knows, is far too little for a market that is exploding no matter the many other obstacles, like insurance companies refusing to compensate patients.

What Is Behind The Continued Delays?
There are several theories circulating the higher levels of the cannabis industry internationally right now even if no one is willing to be quoted. The first is that the total number of successful applicants, including the recent litigants, will be slightly expanded, but stay more or less the same. There is a high standard here for the import of medical cannabis that the Germans intend on duplicating domestically.

The Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA – the often controversial free trade alliance between Europe and Canada) is still in the final stages of approval.The second is that the German government will take its time on announcing the final winners and just open the doors to more imported product. This will not be popular with German insurers, who are on the hook to pay the difference. However with Tilray now on track to open a processing facility in Portugal and Canopy now aligned with Alcaliber in Spain, cross-continent import might be one option the government is also weighing as a stop-gap provision. Tilray, who publicly denied in the German press that they were participating in the cultivation license during the summer, just issued a press release in October announcing a national distribution deal to pharmacies with a German partner – for cannabis oil.

But then there is another possibility behind the delay. The government might also be waiting for another issue to resolve – one that has nothing to do with cannabis specifically, but in fact is now right in the middle of the discussion.

The Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA – the often controversial free trade alliance between Europe and Canada) is still in the final stages of approval. In fact, on September 19, a prominent German politician, Sigmar Gabriel of the Social Democrats (SPD) made a major statement about his party’s willingness to support Germany’s backing of the deal. It might be in fact, that the German government, which is supportive of CETA, got spooked about the cannabis lawsuits as test trials against not cannabis legalization, but a threat to the treaty itself.

Quality control, namely pesticides when it comes to plant matter, and the right of companies to sue governments are two of the most controversial aspects of this trade deal. And both appear to have risen, like old bong smoke, right at the final leg of closing the cannabis cultivation bid.

Will cannabis be seen as a flagship test for the seaworthiness of CETA? On a very interesting level, that answer may be yes. And will CETA in turn create a different discussion about regulatory compliance in an industry that has been, from the beginning of this year, decidedly Canadian-Deutsch? That is also on the table. And of great concern to those who follow the regulatory issues inherent in all. Not to mention, of course, the industry itself.

Conclusions?
Right now, there are none to be had.

However at present, the German bid process is several months behind schedule as Canadian producers themselves face a new wrinkle at home – the regulation of the recreational crop in the provinces.

It is also clear that there are a lot of questions and not a whole lot of answers. Not to mention a timeline when the smoke will clear.

Marguerite Arnold
Founder
MedPayRx
Marguerite Arnold is an American expat now living in Germany. She has just recieved her EMBA from the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. She has a 25 year background in both cannabis reform and technology. She has been covering the international marijuana industry as a journalist and author since 2014. She continues to cover developments in the industry as she launches her own cannabis-tech firm, a company called MedPayRx, which aspires to be the first insurance and banking solution for cannabis patients in the world.


Leave a comment

Peter Homberg is Partner and Head of the German Life Sciences Practice at Dentons, one of the top 10 global law firms present in more than 50 countries. He and his colleagues advise on Germany’s new regulations regarding the legalization of cannabis for medical use.

There are many unusual questions to be asked, so this time we caught up with a very different kind of expert: Peter Homberg is Partner and Head of the German Life Sciences Practice at Dentons, one of the top 10 global law firms present in more than 50 countries. He and his colleagues advise on Germany’s new regulations regarding the legalization of cannabis for medical use.

Peter, the effect and use of cannabis are highly controversial. What is the significance of cannabis for medical purposes and what does the legalization mean for patients?

Before the law was liberalized, patients who suffered from certain diseases, like multiple sclerosis, cancer or chronic pain, could only use cannabis if they had applied for a specific exemption at the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). As regulations were extremely strict, only a few hundred patients were granted the permission to use the cannabis plant for medicinal purposes.

So what does it do? The plant is famous for containing THC, short for tetrahydrocannabinol, which binds to specific cannabis receptors (CB) in the central and peripheral nervous systems. The activation of CB1 in the spinal cord, for instance, reduces the perception of pain. In terms of medical use this means that cannabis can give relief to people suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain and other serious diseases

The change in law means that patients can now receive a prescription from their doctor. If the doctor decides that there are no therapeutic alternatives to alleviate the patient’s suffering, the prescription allows the patient to obtain cannabis at the pharmacy. Although the restrictions have been lifted slightly, these processes are still strictly controlled by the BfArM.

The change in German law means that cannabis can now be prescribed as a pain killer by GPs
What is the current state of affairs in regards to legislation and what is the legal process for obtaining a license to cultivate cannabis?

With the legalization of cannabis, the BfArM established a cannabis agency within the institution to organize and control the cultivation of cannabis for medical use. As a result, a public tender has been released, and numerous companies have applied for the cultivation license.

Companies have to abide to strict guidelines to obtain a cultivation license
Of course, the process is taking much longer than expected, as this is a totally new field and the BfArM is asking for very specific qualifications: A company needs to have had some kind of past experience with cannabis products, they have to own indoor premises for the cultivation of the plants and have specific security measures in place in order to qualify.

Although we don’t have companies in Germany that have experience with growing cannabis, we do have some that have imported the plants from outside of Germany. They have significant experience in handling the product, be it through packaging or security measures.

For example, here in Germany there is a subsidiary of a larger Canadian company that has been producing the plants to a large extent. So this is a great advantage for them as they can build on their experience in Canada and fulfil the necessary requirements to qualify as legal cultivators.

You’ve been able to legally smoke weed in the Netherlands since the 1970’s, other countries like Italy and Denmark liberalized the medical use years ago. Germany seems quite slow in catching-up, why is that?

The legalization of cannabis for medical use in Germany occurred through a chain of unforeseeable events
Germany has one of the strictest narcotic drugs laws in Europe. In my opinion, if the German Federal Administrative Court hadn’t made a very specific decision, then the changes in legislation would never have been made. But through a chain of unforeseeable events, the following occurred:

One of the patients who had received the exemption from the BfArM, started growing his own cannabis at home, stating that the exemption included not only the purchase, but also the cultivation of cannabis. When BfArM sent him a cease and desist order, he took the issue to court.

In the last instance, the court ruled in his favour. This meant that all people who had previously received an exemption from BfArM would be able to legally grow cannabis at home. As this ruling would have resulted in a loss of control by the BfArM and in extension the government, cannabis was legalized for medical use and the complete control over cultivation and distribution returned to the government.

What role is Dentons playing in this whole transition process?

First and foremost we have been informing our international clients on regulatory issues and the new legislation in Germany. With cannabis everything is new, it’s a completely new field and different from any other topic in the life sciences.

THC – tetrahydrocannabinol – binds to specific cannabis receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems
We have an international cannabis group at Dentons that is at the forefront of current affairs and keeps up to date on the topic. Our work includes regulatory advice, mergers and acquisitions and intellectual property. For instance, we have advised clients, one of them a large Canadian company, on the acquisition of a cannabis distributor in Germany to get a strong foothold in the country and on the European market.

In future, we will also have to handle various disputes. It will be very interesting to see how they evolve, how to handle them and their outcome. If one company, for example, receives the permission to cultivate cannabis in Germany and others don’t, then these decisions will certainly be challenged.

What can Germany… what can Europe learn from Canada?

Canada is well ahead in the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. What is happening in Germany now is following the Canadian pattern: Today, we have a tender in the public procurement field that came from BfArM. It invited qualified companies to put forward their bid on specific cannabis plants in order to sell these to BfArM. In turn, BfArM will sell these plants to the pharmacies. Like in Canada, a government controlled process.

Germany can learn from Canada in issues of quality control as well. BfArM wants to overlook the cultivation and distribution process, because patients have to be able to count on a high quality product. Quality control includes specific laboratories, which check the type of insecticides or pesticides used or how much THC a plant contains.

There is much to learn from the Canadians, such as quality control, and cultivation and distribution processes
How do you see this niche developing from a legal but also from a medical perspective? What do you personally hope to see happen?

Our clients hope to see a greater liberalization, also for casual use. In my opinion this is not going to happen neither in Germany, nor in other countries in Europe. Nevertheless, more countries in the world are considering the medical use of cannabis and consequently, investors are looking into it as they expect a significant growth in the market.

We will also see a certain amount of effort put into research. With this new kind of liberalisation the indications that qualify for cannabinoid treatment have to be defined. Today we know that cannabis can help patients with for example chronic pain, cancer or multiple sclerosis, but in future we may discover more indications that will qualify for the treatment with cannabis.

“Germany has one of the strictest narcotic drugs laws in Europe”
Accordingly, the group of patients who can use cannabis as a medicinal product will grow. But the market in Germany is very competitive, so it will be interesting to see how companies and institutions will position themselves on the market to get a piece of the cake that is bound to become larger and larger every year.

Personally, I am glad that cannabis has been made available as a medicinal product for people who suffer severe pain. For many it is the best painkiller with less side effects than other drugs.

Want to learn more about the legal aspects of cannabis as a medicinal product? Visit Dentons here!

Images via Miss Nuchwara Tongrit, Africa Studio, Shutterstockphoto3, Zerbor/Shutterstock

What you need to Know about the Legalization of Cannabis for Medical Use


Leave a comment

Kiffen on recipe? The cannabis doctor of Berlin

– by Thorsten Harmsen

Eva Milz (44) treats patients with medical cannabis. It means that the possibilities of the medium have not been fully developed.

Legal killing on prescription – critics see the meaning of the law, which the Bundestag decided in March. For the first time, doctors can prescribe cannabis. One of them is Eva Milz, psychiatrist with practice in Johannisthal.

The flowers of the hemp plant can relieve severe symptoms of the disease: – chronic pain, spastic paralysis, nausea, anxiety. But the plant can do more. This is my medical profession, who has dedicated himself to the development of the therapeutic potential of cannabis. There are only a few in Germany who believe that it is worth using cannabis as a therapy attempt .

Eva Milz knows about the restraint of many colleagues when dealing with the medicine. Because physicians are only allowed to prescribe medicinal cannabis if standard therapies do not help or have a “not very distant prospect of noticeable positive development on the course of the disease”. “Most doctors talk out and think you have to wear your head under your arm before you get cannabis,” says Eva Milz. But the fear of the means is unfounded.

Cannabis has already been used as a medicine in antiquity, including China and Egypt. This experience has been lost, says Eva Milz. For example, no medicine student learns that the body has many docking points for the substances from the hemp plant. These would be used to control messengers which ensure the functioning of nerve cells. “That’s part of every textbook,” says Eva Milz.

Nationwide it was about a thousand patients

She worked in many clinics, most recently as a psychiatrist at the Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin. She knows the spectrum of the means of modern medicine. It was addressed to cannabis as a therapy option for the first time in 2002. She then worked in patient advice for the medicine portal of a specialist publishing house. Multiple sclerosis patients, to whom she was talking, had discovered by accident – for example, when smoking a joint – that cannabis helps them as no other remedy.

Many asked if it was not legal. In working for the Federal Center for Health Education, Eva Milz again met people who were suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and reported that they were permanently in a state of decline after cannabis withdrawal.

When she founded her practice in 2015, she co-operated with the doctor, Franjo Grotenhermen, chairman of the Cannabis Consortium for Medicine (ACM). Eva Milz reviewed medical reports from patients from all over Germany and sent them to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. At the time, this granted exemptions for patients who were allowed to use cannabis.

Nationwide, it was about a thousand – 20 percent of ADHD patients. Those affected can not concentrate, neither learn nor work. They often find themselves in an offside position because they have an outcrop. But after the consumption of cannabis, they were able to concentrate, were able to learn and work. Many got their impulses under control.

Cannabis plant
The flowers of the hemp plant can alleviate serious symptoms.
Photo: Imago / CTK Photo
In ADHD, the THC appears to promote the concentration and focus of patients

According to Eva Milz, this is due to the variety of the ingredients of the hemp plant, especially the cannabinoids. “The main player that most know is the THC,” she says, expelled tetrahydrocannabinol. It has a harsh, psychoactive effect. “Cannabidiol, CBD, is quite unknown,” says Eva Milz. It acts like an opponent to the THC: anxiety and cramping, relaxing and anti-inflammatory. In addition, there are other cannabinoids, essential oils and aromas.

The components worked together. In ADHD, for example, the THC appears to be mainly focussing on the concentration and focus of the patient, says Eva Milz. The CBD probably solve the fear. Because impulsiveness and austerity have much to do with fear.

Perplexed, the psychiatrist read in the doctor’s letters that it was always the parents of young ADHD patients who asked if one could not legalize cannabis. Those who were closest to those affected had noticed that conventional drugs such as Ritalin slowed the sufferers, but also slowed creativity and liveliness. Cannabis had been an alternative.

In multiple-sclerosis patients, the agent for pain and muscle cramps is also effective, because both parts – THC and CBD – are also present, says Eva Milz. A list of 14 varieties of medicinal cannabis blossoms with different dosages shows how diverse the remedy is.

“I have been waiting for the critical questions of cannabis opponents for two years”

Many people think of cannabis first drug, possible addiction and its consequences. But even these are well controlled by an experienced doctor, says Eva Milz. It is reminiscent of conventional drugs that trigger the most severe dependencies. Cannabis with its comparatively mild withdrawal symptoms could possibly serve as a substitute.

One missing Eva Milz: “I have been waiting for the critical questions of cannabis opponents for two years, but I do not get them.” Instead, desperate patients came to her, who had been thrown out by other doctors – as supposedly addicts who were on detours Material wanted to come.

The doctor is inter alia with researchers at a university in conversation. Studies are being conducted on the use of cannabis flowers in Tourette’s syndrome, ADHD and other diseases where the drug is already being used. “I would like to have 30 to 50 preparations, which I can use as necessary,” she says. It is used for inflammatory diseases, anxiety, sleep disorders, neurodermatitis, migraine and other ailments.

One problem is the cost. The health insurance funds approve only about half of the applications. But a treatment can cost up to 3000 euros a month. For one gram of cannabis, the pharmacies demand 22 euros. Many could not afford it.

– Quelle: http://www.berliner-kurier.de/28240224 ©2017


Leave a comment

How cannabis patients despite the prescription are harassed by the police – by BENEDICT NIESSEN

How cannabis patients despite the prescription are harassed by the police

BENEDICT NIESSEN
Aug 25, 2017, 12:48 pm

Symbolfoto: imago Christian Mang

Anxious doctors, skimpy coffers, inexpensive grass, empty pharmacies. The medical cannabis legislation: a first gloomy conclusion.

divide

Tweet
Glockenbachviertel in Munich, a sunny spring day in May. The 31 year old Christoph sits with two girlfriends on a meadow on the Isar. “Somehow I had to take my medication,” says Christoph. Its medications are joints. He has ADHD. A few minutes later four civilian policemen are standing around the group. “One of them immediately took the joint away and they began to search me,” recalls Christoph.

DISPLAY

He tells the policeman that in his left handbag he finds his prescription for cannabis . “After they finally looked at it, a policeman imprisoned me for prescription.” The policemen then search his companions. Christoph asks for the reason for the search. “One of the policemen just said, ‘Other junkies have knives and syringes.'” Then the policemen let him run. For Christopher, however, the case is not finished. He lodged a complaint “on the grounds of unlawful and disproportionate police action, damage to my property, and insult to my person by police officers 21”. The policeHas answered him that the Bavarian LKA is now checking whether the police have acted illegally, and whether Christoph is entitled to compensation. It is the normal normal madness for German patients, who since March cannabis can get by law as medicine.

This is how a prescription for medical cannabis looks (Photo: private)
Alone at the Barmer, the AOK and the Techniker Krankenkasse asked nearly 6,000 patients around cannabis on the prescription and a reimbursement, writes the star . Christoph has been using a cannabis recipe since April. “I am hyperactive and very sensitive to the sound,” he says. “During the day, I need the THC to be able to focus, but I’m tired in the afternoon because of my basic activity.” Unlike the current ADHD drug Ritalin – which Christoph took since his 13th year of age – cannabis has no side effects. The new cannabis law would actually help him – if he came to his medicine.

“Since I have my prescription, the varieties that my doctor has prescribed for me are not available,” says Christoph. “Since June there was nothing left, so I had to wait three weeks.” Substitutes such as the oral spray Sativex had been incorrectly dosed. Christoph earned his money as a software developer. “I have to go to work and can not be on such a downer means, where I run around in the afternoon like a zombie.”

DISPLAY

“The supply bottlenecks for physically prescribed cannabis exist nationwide and can theoretically occur in each of the approximately 20,000 pharmacies,” writes the German Association of German Pharmacists (ABDA) on demand from VICE. After all, “Some retailers will probably be available again from September.” German pharmacies are still ordering cannabis in the Netherlands and Canada until next year’s production is due to start. “For four or five weeks, we are witnessing the first big supply bottleneck, but there will probably be bottlenecks again in the future because demand is constantly increasing,” explains Deputy Managing Director of the German Hanfverband (DHV), Florian Rister. There are further problems with the bottlenecks.

Also with VICE: The cook, the grass keeps alive.

Since March 10, patients should be able to get cannabis – actually. “It is still unclear for the patients whether the health insurance funds pay because the law was so spongy,” says Rister of the hemp association. Because there is no exact definition of disease images, the cash desks themselves can decide whether to pay or not. Barmer, AOK and Techniker Krankenkasse, according to their own data, granted only about half of the nearly 6,000 applications.

Another problem: since the law change, the prices of medicinal cannabis blossoms have doubled . This price explosion included, among other things, the fact that cannabis has to be labeled as a prescription drug and not as a finished drug , and pharmacies can make a 100 percent purchase price. “The prices are currently 24 euros per gram for private individuals, who have to pay themselves. For the coffers, such a price explosion is also a burden,” says Rister. The high prices also deter the doctors. “While many doctors have never been involved in cannabis, other people are afraid to break their practice budgets with these high costs and to be reconsidered .”

DISPLAY

Because many patients do not find a doctor, one of the leading German specialists for cannabis has been in hunger for a week . Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen wants to draw attention to the criminalization of cannabis patients. “The law is a great step in the right direction, but many patients still have to provide their medicine illegally,” says Grotenhermen to VICE. He calls for a change of law. “The prosecution of patients who have a doctor certified the need for a therapy with cannabis must be terminated.”

Christoph, despite the bottlenecks in pharmacies, has not yet returned to a dealer on the road. He was lucky and managed to get last doses of cannabis blossoms at pharmacies in Munich. Even if his health insurance does not pay his ten prescribed daily dues. Christoph, however, also knows of patients who had to get their medicine different because of the bottlenecks. If they are caught, they are threatened with an advertisement. At the Deutscher Hanfverband, other patients who, like Christoph, were searched or arrested by the police, despite a prescription for cannabis use. “Personal injury, house searches, insults” are the accusations against the officials in at least four cases, which the DHV Munich collected so far.

Icon image: Christoph is not the only cannabis patient who is criminalized by the police (Photo: imago | IPON)
In an open letter to the Minister of Health and the Drug Commissioner, The Left Party already drew attention at the beginning of June to pimpling coffers and the price explosions for cannabis blossoms. The federal government stated in a reply that it had requested a report to the top association of statutory health insurance (GKV). However, because the Federal Government did not set any time limits, the problems could be protracted. “The government needs to cut prices by law in the interests of patients,” the Frank-Tempel drug spokesman said on the website of his party , “We need short-term solutions and can not wait any longer.”

Just a week ago, the Federal Government’s Drug Commissioner, Marlene Mortler (CSU), published the sobering drug and addiction report 2017 . In it, the passionate grass-adversary warned against a trivialization of cannabis and demanded an active anti-cannabis policy in the federation. Specialist Franjo Grotenhermen says he would like to talk with Mortler about the dangers. “I would like to invite her, but she would never accept anything like this.” Mrs. Mortler would look embarrassed if she would talk to me because she can not do anything but “Drugs are dangerous.” He does not believe in a quick solution. “At the moment I am simply desperate and try to draw attention to the failures with this hunger strike.”

DISPLAY

Christoph also hopes for change. Since the incident with the police, he is careful, he says. “I was pretty done now, I’m always watching where I can take my medication every day.” After all, ten doses a day – ten joints – were prescribed for him. “Should I hide, so that I may be well? That is not the point.” Yet he believes in the law. “I would be glad if it finally helped us,” he says. “I just hope I get the right drugs soon, pay my health insurance and I do not have to be afraid of the police.”
https://www.vice.com/de/article/j55bgb/wie-cannabis-patienten-trotz-rezept-von-der-polizei-schikaniert-werden?utm_medium=link&utm_source=vicefbde
Follow VICE on Facebook , Instagram and Snapchat .


Leave a comment

Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen on hunger strike in solidarity with German medical marijuana patients being unable to secure medicine.

http://cannabis-hungerstreik.de/

On August 17, 2017, I entered an indefinite hunger strike. The objective of refusing to accept any food is to decriminalize all citizens who need cannabis to treat their serious diseases.

On March 10, 2017, a much-debated law on cannabis as a medicine went into effect in Germany. It was the declared aim of the legislature to allow all patients who need a therapy with cannabis medicines to do so. The law, however, proves itself in practice as bureaucratic. Therefore, a treatment with cannabis and cannabinoids is unattractive for doctors who in principle support such therapy. Many patients do not find a doctor who allows them legal access to the needed treatment.

The legislator has taken a great step into the right direction. However, many patients are still dependent on a still as illegal regarded treatment. They face criminal sanctions. This is no longer acceptable. Therefore a basic clarification in the narcotics law must be established. The prosecution of patients to whom a doctor has certified the need for a therapy with cannabis must end.

Already today, the German Narcotics Law allows prosecutors to stop a criminal case in the case of a „minor debt“. This possibility is mainly applied in cases of possession of small amounts of cannabis. I urge that criminal proceedings should in principle also be stopped if accused citizens need cannabis for medical reasons. The need for a cannabis therapy should not be judged by the judiciary, a government agency or a health insurance company, but, as with other medical treatments, also by a doctor.

I also strongly support the uncomplicated access of patients to standardized preparations from the pharmacy. In this respect, it is necessary to improve the existing law. However, the prosecution of the remaining losers of the legal situation must also be ended. I am not aware of a convincing argument by which patients‘ prosecution can be maintained. A corresponding amendment to the Narcotics Act is, therefore, logical and unavoidable.

Franjo Grotenhermen, born in 1957, studied medicine in Cologne. Medical practice in Rüthen (NRW) with a focus on therapy with cannabis and cannabinoids. Grotenhermen is the chairman of the German Association for Cannabis as Medicine (ACM), Executive Director of the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines (IACM) and Chairman of the Medical Cannabis Declaration (MCD), as well as author of the IACM-Bulletin, which is available in several languages ​​on the website of the IACM. Grotenhermen is an associate of the Cologne nova-Institut in the department of renewable resources and author of numerous articles and books on the therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids, their pharmaco logy and toxicology. Among others, since 2008 he has been an expert on debates in the Health Committee of the German Bundestag on the medical use of cannabis products, most recently in September 2016.


Leave a comment

European Union COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/1155 of 15 February 2017 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 as regards the control measures relating to the cultivation of hemp

30.6.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 167/1
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2017/1155
of 15 February 2017
amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 as regards the control measures relating to the cultivation of hemp, certain provisions on the greening payment, the payment for young farmers in control of a legal person, the calculation of the per unit amount in the framework of voluntary coupled support, the fractions of payment entitlements and certain notification requirements relating to the single area payment scheme and the voluntary coupled support, and amending Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1), and in particular Article 35(2) and (3), Articles 44(5)(b) and 46(9)(a) and (c), Article 50(11), Article 52(9)(a) and Article 67(1) and (2)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
According to Article 35(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts making the granting of payments conditional upon the use of certified seeds of certain hemp varieties and laying down the procedure for the determination of hemp varieties and the verification of their tetrahydrocannabinol content (THC content) referred to in Article 32(6) of that Regulation. At present, Article 9 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 (2) only provides for the obligation to use seed of the varieties listed in the ‘Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species’ and to use seed certified in accordance with Council Directive 2002/57/EC (3). The rules for the determination of hemp varieties and the verification of their THC content currently laid down in Article 45 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 (4) and the Annex to that Regulation should be included in Article 9 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014.
(2)
The rules for the determination of hemp varieties and the verification of the THC content are based on the assumption that hemp is cultivated as main crop, but they are not fully suitable for hemp cultivated as catch crop. As this latter cultivation method has proved to be appropriate for industrial hemp and compatible with environmental requirements, it is justified to adapt both provisions to take into account the characteristics of hemp cultivated as catch crop. In that context, it is also appropriate to provide a definition of hemp cultivated as catch crop.
(3)
Article 24 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 lays down requirements for the activation of payment entitlements. In order to avoid any diverging interpretation, it is appropriate to clarify that for the purposes of Article 31(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, also a fraction of a payment entitlement is considered as fully activated. However, it should be stated explicitly that the payment is calculated on the basis of the corresponding fraction of an eligible hectare.
(4)
Articles 38 to 48 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 lay down rules supplementing the provisions on standard greening practices established by Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. On the basis of the experience gained during the first year in which those practices were applied, it is necessary to amend certain aspects of those rules in order to simplify the implementation of the greening practices for the benefit of farmers and national administrations while maintaining or improving the environment and climate impact. In particular, the modifications should contribute to address the actions identified in the conclusions of the Mid-Term Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and enable progress of the coverage of agricultural area by biodiversity related measures under the common agricultural policy (5).
(5)
In the rules on the calculation of shares of different crops for crop diversification set out in Article 40 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, the crop diversification period is based on traditional cultivation practices in Member States. It is appropriate to allow Member States to fix different periods at regional or sub-regional level in order to take into account possible diverse climatic conditions within a territory of a Member State. In some specific situations where a significant variety of crops on a small area exists, it should be possible, in order to simplify the declaration of crops grown, to declare them as one mixed crop.
(6)
As regards land lying fallow, setting a period in Article 45(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 during which there should be no agricultural production is fundamental to ensure the environmental effectiveness of such land and to avoid any confusion with other areas such as grasslands. In order to take into account the different agro-climatic conditions across the Union, Member States should have the possibility to set such period to allow farmers to resume main crops before the end of the year. However, such period should not be shorter than 6 months in order to meet the objectives of environmental effectiveness and to avoid any confusion with other areas.
(7)
The distinction between different landscape features listed in Article 45(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 is a source of uncertainty for farmers when declaring ecological focus areas. In order to reduce this uncertainty, simplify the management of the scheme for Member States’ authorities and address the complexity encountered by farmers when declaring ecological focus areas, hedges and wooded strips referred to in point (a) of that provision and trees in line referred to in point (c) of that provision should be grouped as one type of landscape feature so that one single dimension limit applies to them. Moreover, for the same reasons, the areas referred to in Article 45(4)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 should be grouped under field copses.
(8)
Furthermore, even if, as stated in recital 51 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, maximum dimensions of landscape features are needed to ensure that the area is predominantly agricultural, such dimension limits should not lead to the exclusion of features that exceed such dimensions but which are valuable for biodiversity. Therefore, the area which may be qualified as a landscape feature pursuant to Article 45(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 should be calculated up to the maximum dimension of the feature.
(9)
Given the high environmental benefit of riparian vegetation referred to in the fifth subparagraph of Article 45(4) and in Article 45(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, it is appropriate to set out that all riparian vegetation should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the ecological focus areas.
(10)
For the same reasons as mentioned in recitals 7 and 8 in relation to Article 45(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, field margins, currently referred to in point (e) of that provision, should be merged with buffer strips in Article 45(5) of that Regulation and a single dimension limit should be set in relation to buffer strips and field margins. Such maximum dimension in relation to buffer strips and field margins should refer to the area which may be qualified as buffer strips and field margins pursuant to Article 45(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. In order to provide the maximum flexibility to farmers, the definition of buffer strips under GAEC 1, SMR 1 or SMR 10 as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and field margins protected under GAEC 7, SMR 2 or SMR 3 as referred to in that Annex, should be supplemented by other buffer strips and field margins, meaning any kind of strips not covered by these two categories under cross-compliance rules.
(11)
The second subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 allows landscape features and buffer strips adjacent to arable land to be considered as ecological focus areas. In order to maximise the environmental benefit of landscape features and buffer strips referred to in Article 45(4) and (5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 and encourage the protection and maintenance of additional elements, this provision should be supplemented with rules offering flexibility by taking into account other environmentally valuable elements which fulfil the definition of these ecological focus area types and which are not adjacent to the arable land of the holding. Therefore, where such buffer strip and field margin or landscape feature is adjacent to the ecological focus area directly adjacent to the arable land of a holding, it should also be recognised as an ecological focus area.
(12)
For the same reasons as mentioned in recitals 7 and 8 in relation to Article 45(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, the maximum dimensions set in relation to strips of eligible hectares along forest edges referred to in Article 45(7) of that Regulation should refer to the area which may be qualified as such strips pursuant to that provision.
(13)
In light of the provisions of point (g) of the first subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 it is appropriate to clarify that the establishment of the requirements as regards the use of mineral fertilisers and/or plant protection products is relevant only in case such input products are authorised.
(14)
The existing deadline for sowing of catch crops and green cover laid down in Article 45(9) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 does not always fit with the agronomic and climatic conditions. With a view to better achieving the environmental objectives of this ecological focus area type, it is appropriate to replace the deadline for sowing of catch crops and green cover with a minimum period of time during which areas under catch crops and green cover have to be in place. In order to provide the necessary flexibility to take into account seasonal weather conditions, Member States should be allowed to fix that period at the most appropriate geographical level. However, since the permanence of catch crops and green cover on the ground is a key factor in ensuring an effective take up of residual nitrate and coverage of soil while the area is not covered by the main crop, the minimum length of the period should be set at Union level. In order to be consistent with the interpretation provided on the definition of grasses or other herbaceous forage laid down in Article 4(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, under-sowing leguminous crops in the main crop should also be possible. Furthermore, in order to ensure consistency between equivalent practices covered by commitments and certification schemes as referred to in Article 43(3)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, respectively, rules on qualifying catch crops or green cover as ecological focus areas should be aligned.
(15)
Even if, as a general rule only areas with nitrogen-fixing crops grown as pure species should be qualified as ecological focus areas, given that in traditional cultivation practices such crops are often mixed with other crops, it is appropriate to allow, under Article 45(10) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, that areas with mixtures may also be qualified as ecological focus areas provided that the predominance of the nitrogen-fixing crops in such mixtures is ensured. In addition, based on the experience with the application of the first subparagraph of Article 45(10) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 and in light of the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC (7) and Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), it is superfluous to prescribe specific rules on the location of these nitrogen-fixing crops. Instead, and with a view to strengthening Member States efforts to address the risk of nitrogen leaching in the autumn, Member States should be allowed to establish additional conditions on nitrogen-fixing crops if necessary. Furthermore, in order to ensure consistency between equivalent practices covered by commitments and certification schemes as referred to in Article 43(3)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, respectively, rules on qualifying nitrogen-fixing crops as ecological focus area should be aligned.
(16)
Experience with the application of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 has proven that certain provisions relating to the ecological focus area types need to be more detailed as regards the requirement of ‘no production’ including the rules on cutting and grazing with a view to meeting the objective of biodiversity and to ensuring consistency with other instruments of the common agricultural policy. In particular, as regards the ‘no agricultural production’ requirement applicable to the ecological focus area types referred to in Article 45(2), (4)(e), (5) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, it should be clarified that production should be understood as agricultural activity in the meaning of Article 4(1)(c)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, and not in the broader sense of Article 4(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) of the same Regulation, and should not affect the rules on minimum soil cover under GAEC 4 as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. In addition, undertaking actions by farmers, in particular, by facilitating pollination, in order to safeguard and improve biodiversity, aiming at establishing a green soil cover and which are, for instance, covered by an agri-environment-climate commitment, should be incentivised to maximise the environmental benefits.
(17)
Given that the three main types of areas declared by farmers as ecological focus areas in the first year of implementation of Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 are areas which are, or may be, productive, namely land lying fallow, catch crops or green cover and nitrogen-fixing crops, plant production products are likely to be used in ecological focus areas. Therefore, in order to safeguard and improve biodiversity in line with the objectives of ‘greening’, it is appropriate to ban the use of plant protection products on the following ecological focus areas which are or may be productive: land lying fallow, strips of eligible hectares along forest edges with production, catch crops or green cover and nitrogen-fixing crops. Where catch crops or green cover is established by under-sowing grass or leguminous crops in the main crop, in order to avoid, for proportionality reasons, consequences for the management of the main crop, such a ban should apply from the moment of the harvesting of the main crop. In order to ensure consistency of the ban with the usual agronomic practices, ensure legal certainty and avoid administrative difficulties for farmers and national administrations it should be specified that the ban for under-sowing should apply for at least a minimum period, equal to the minimum period during which areas under catch crops or green cover have to be in place when established by sowing a mixture of crop species, or until the sowing of the next main crop.
(18)
Article 49 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 lays down the rules under which legal persons have access to the payment for young farmers provided for in Article 50(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. On the basis of the experience gained with the application of Article 49(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, a further clarification should be provided as to the interpretation of the requirement laid down in point (b) of Article 50(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 in respect of the time when a young farmer who exercises effective and long-term control over a legal person has to comply with the age limit. In particular, it is appropriate to clarify that the young farmer has to comply with the age limit of 40 years in the year of the first submission of an application under the basic payment scheme or the single area payment scheme by the legal person with a young farmer in control.
(19)
According to the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, the per unit amount of voluntary coupled support results from the ratio between the amount fixed for the financing of the relevant measure and either the quantitative limit fixed pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(2), or the number of hectares or animals that are eligible for the support in the year in question. It is appropriate to reformulate that provision in such a way that Member States may fix the per unit amount at a value within the range between those two values where the number of eligible units is lower than the quantitative limit.
(20)
Pursuant to Article 64(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, Member States applying the single area payment scheme in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 are to notify the Commission by 1 September each year of the total number of hectares declared by farmers under that scheme. However, that information is notified to the Commission annually in more detail pursuant to Article 9(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014. Article 64(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 can therefore be deleted.
(21)
Based on the Commission’s experience with the management of the notifications relating to greening pursuant to Article 65 to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, some adjustments should be made as regards their content, including with respect to greening provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 as amended by this Regulation.
(22)
In accordance with Article 67(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, Member States are to notify the Commission of the total number of beneficiaries, the amount of the payments which have been granted as well as the total area and the total number of animals for which the support has actually been paid for each coupled support measure and each of the specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors concerned.
(23)
As from claim year 2015, the total number of beneficiaries and the total area or total number of animals claimed and determined for each voluntary coupled support measure are notified by Member States in accordance with Article 9(1) and (3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014. Furthermore, as from claim year 2016, the amount of the payments which have been granted for each coupled support measure will be included in the communications of information by the Member States in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (9). Therefore, Article 67(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 should be deleted.
(24)
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(25)
As a consequence of the amendment of certain provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 concerning the ecological focus area types, changes to Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 need to be made, in particular by adapting the list of ecological focus area types and the corresponding factors, where necessary. Recital 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 emphasises the importance of ecological focus areas to be established in a coherent way. Therefore, conversion and weighting factors applicable to equivalent practices have to be consistent with the factors applicable to similar or identical standard practices. In the interest of legal certainty and equal treatment between farmers, Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 should be amended accordingly.
(26)
This Regulation should enter into force on the third day after its publication. However, as the clarification of Article 49(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 and the reformulation of the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of that Regulation reflect an interpretation given to those provisions since the application of that Regulation, it is appropriate that those amendments apply retroactively. Considering the time necessary for the national authorities to update their existing administrative tools and to inform farmers sufficiently in advance of the amendments of the greening provisions made by this Regulation, those amendments should only apply with respect to aid applications relating to calendar years starting as from 1 January 2018. However, Member States should be given the possibility to apply them with respect to aid applications relating to calendar year 2017 while bearing in mind that any choices in this regard should be coherent from the perspective of farmers. A notification obligation as regards consequential changes to previous notifications relating to that calendar year should be provided for,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Amendment of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 is amended as follows:
(1)
Article 9 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 9
Hemp
1. For the purposes of Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the eligibility of areas used for the production of hemp shall be subject to the use of seed of the varieties listed in the “Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species” on 15 March of the year in respect of which the payment is granted and published in accordance with Article 17 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC (*1). The seed shall be certified in accordance with Council Directive 2002/57/EC (*2).
2. Member States shall establish the system for determining the Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol content (hereinafter referred to as “THC content”) in hemp varieties, which allows them to apply the method set out in Annex III.
3. The competent authority of the Member State shall keep the records related to findings on the THC content. Such records shall comprise for each variety at least the results in terms of THC content from each sample expressed in percentage to two decimal places, the procedure used, the number of tests carried out, an indication of the point at which the sample was taken and measures taken at national level.
4. If an average of all the samples of a given variety exceeds the THC content as laid down in Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, Member States shall use procedure B as described in Annex III to this Regulation for the variety concerned in the course of the following claim year. That procedure shall be used in the course of the next claim years unless all the analytical results for the given variety are below the THC content as laid down in Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.
5. If for the second year the average of all the samples of a given variety exceeds the THC content as laid down in Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the Member State shall notify the Commission of the request for authorisation to prohibit the marketing of such variety in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC. Such notification shall be sent in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 (*3) by 15 January of the following claim year at the latest. Starting from that claim year, the variety covered by that request shall not be eligible for direct payments in the Member State concerned.
6. For the purposes of this Regulation, “hemp cultivated as catch crop” means crop of hemp sown after 30 June of a given year.
7. Crops of hemp shall continue to be cultivated under normal growing conditions in accordance with local practice for at least 10 days from the date of the end of flowering so that the checks necessary for the application of this Article can be made. Hemp cultivated as catch crop shall continue to be cultivated under normal growing conditions in accordance with local practice at least until the end of the vegetation period.
However, Member States may authorise hemp to be harvested after flowering has begun but before the end of the 10-day period after the end of flowering, provided that the inspectors indicate which representative parts of each plot concerned must continue to be cultivated for at least 10 days following the end of flowering for inspection purposes, in accordance with the method set out in Annex III.
(*1) Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 1).”
(*2) Council Directive 2002/57/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants (OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 74).”
(*3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 of 31 August 2009 laying down detailed rules for the Member States’ notification to the Commission of information and documents in implementation of the common organisation of the markets, the direct payments’ regime, the promotion of agricultural products and the regimes applicable to the outermost regions and the smaller Aegean islands (OJ L 228, 1.9.2009, p. 3).’”
(2)
In Article 24, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
‘2. Where a farmer declares a number of payment entitlements exceeding his total eligible area declared pursuant to Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, the payment entitlement or the fraction of a payment entitlement which is partially exceeding that eligible area shall be deemed as fully activated for the purposes of Article 31(1)(b) of that Regulation. However, the payment shall be calculated on the basis of the corresponding fraction of an eligible hectare.’
(3)
Article 40 is amended as follows:
(a)
in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, the following sentence is added:
‘That period may be fixed at national, regional or the appropriate sub-regional level.’;
(b)
in paragraph 3, the following fourth subparagraph is added:
‘Areas on which different crops are grown next to each other, where each single crop covers an area that is smaller than the minimum size set by Member States referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 72(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, may be considered by Member States as covered with one ‘mixed crop’ as referred to in the third subparagraph of this paragraph.’
(4)
Article 45 is amended as follows:
(a)
paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
‘2. On land lying fallow there shall be no agricultural production. Member States shall fix a period during which the land must be lying fallow in a given calendar year. That period shall not be shorter than 6 months. By way of derogation from Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, land lying fallow for the purpose of fulfilling the ecological focus area for more than 5 years shall remain arable land.’;
(b)
paragraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:
‘4. Landscape features shall be at the disposal of the farmer and may be those that are protected under GAEC 7, SMR 2 or SMR 3 as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 and/or one or more of the following features:
(a)
hedges, wooded strips or trees in line;
(b)
isolated trees;
(c)
field copses including trees, bushes or stones;
(d)
ponds. Reservoirs made of concrete or plastic shall not be considered ecological focus areas;
(e)
ditches, including open watercourses for the purpose of irrigation or drainage. Channels with walls of concrete shall not be considered ecological focus areas.
(f)
traditional stone walls.
Member States may decide to limit the selection of landscape features to those under GAEC 7, SMR 2 or SMR 3 as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 and/or to one or more of points (a) to (f) of the first subparagraph.
For the hedges, wooded strips and trees in line as well as ditches referred to in points (a) and (e) of the first subparagraph, respectively, the area to be qualified as ecological focus area shall be calculated up to a maximum width of 10 metres.
For the field copses and ponds referred to in points (c) and (d) of the first subparagraph, respectively, the area to be qualified as ecological focus area shall be calculated up to a maximum size of 0,3 hectare.
For the purposes of point (d) of the first subparagraph, Member States may set a minimum size for ponds. Where there is a strip with riparian vegetation along the water the corresponding area shall be included for the purpose of calculating the ecological focus area. Member States may establish criteria to ensure that ponds are of natural value, taking into account the role that natural ponds play for the conservation of habitats and species.
For the purposes of point (f) of the first subparagraph, Member States shall establish minimum criteria based on national or regional specificities, including limits to the dimensions of height and width.
5. Buffer strips and field margins may be any buffer strips and field margins including those buffer strips along water courses required under GAEC 1, SMR 1 or SMR 10 as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 or field margins protected under GAEC 7, SMR 2 or SMR 3 as referred to in that Annex.
Member States shall not limit the selection of buffer strips and field margins to those required under the cross compliance rules referred to in the first subparagraph.
Member States shall establish the minimum width of buffer strips and field margins which shall not be below 1 metre for ecological focus area purposes. Along water courses, riparian vegetation shall be included for the purpose of calculating the ecological focus area. There shall be no agricultural production on buffer strips and field margins.
For buffer strips and field margins other than those required or protected under GAEC 1, GAEC 7, SMR 1, SMR 2, SMR 3 or SMR 10 as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, the area to be qualified as ecological focus area shall be calculated up to a maximum width of 20 metres.’;
(c)
the following paragraph 5a is inserted:
‘5a. For the purposes of the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, areas referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article shall be considered as adjacent areas or features where they are adjacent to an ecological focus area directly adjacent to the arable land of the holding.’;
(d)
paragraphs 7 to 10 are replaced by the following:
‘7. As regards strips of eligible hectares along forest edges Member States may decide either to allow agricultural production or to establish a requirement of no agricultural production, or to provide the two options for farmers. Member States shall establish the minimum width of those strips, which shall not be below 1 metre.
The area to be qualified as ecological focus area shall be calculated up to a maximum width of 10 metres where Member States decide to allow agricultural production and 20 metres where Member States decide not to allow agricultural production.
8. For areas with short rotation coppice with no use of mineral fertiliser and/or plant protection products, Member States shall establish a list of species that may be used for this purpose, by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous. Member States shall also establish the requirements as regards the use of mineral fertilisers and/or plant protection products in case Member States authorise their use, keeping in mind the objective of ecological focus areas in particular to safeguard and improve biodiversity.
9. Areas under catch crops or green cover shall include such areas established pursuant to the requirements under SMR 1 as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 as well as other areas under catch crops or green cover, on the condition that they were established by sowing a mixture of crop species or by under-sowing grass or leguminous crops in the main crop.
Member States shall set up the list of mixtures of crop species to be used and fix the period at national, regional, sub-regional or farm level during which areas under catch crops or green cover when established by sowing a mixture of crop species have to be in place. This period shall not be less than 8 weeks. Member States may establish additional conditions notably with regard to production methods.
Areas under catch crops or green cover shall not include areas under winter crops which are sown in autumn normally for harvesting or for grazing. They shall also not include the areas covered with equivalent practices mentioned in points I.3 and 4 of Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.
10. On areas with nitrogen-fixing crops, farmers shall grow those nitrogen-fixing crops which are included in a list established by the Member State. That list shall contain the nitrogen-fixing crops that the Member State considers as contributing to the objective of improving biodiversity and may include mixtures of nitrogen-fixing crops with other crops provided that nitrogen-fixing crop species are predominant. Those crops shall be present during the growing season. Member States may establish additional conditions notably with regard to production method, in particular with a view to taking into account the need to meet the objectives of Directive 91/676/EEC and Directive 2000/60/EC, given the potential of nitrogen-fixing crops to increase the risk of nitrogen leaching in the autumn.
Areas with nitrogen-fixing crops shall not include the areas covered with equivalent practices mentioned in points I.3 and 4 of Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.’;
(e)
the following paragraphs 10a, 10b and 10c are inserted:
‘10a. For the purposes of paragraphs 2, 5 and 7, “no agricultural production” means no agricultural activity as defined in Article 4(1)(c)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, without prejudice to the requirements defined under GAEC 4 as referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. Actions aiming at establishing a green soil cover for biodiversity purposes, including sowing mixtures of wild flower seeds, shall be allowed.
However, by way of derogation from the “no production” requirement, for the purposes of paragraphs 5 and 7, Member States may allow cutting or grazing on buffer strips and field margins as well as on strips of eligible hectares along forest edges without production, provided that the strip remains distinguishable from adjacent agricultural land.
10b. The use of plant protection products shall be prohibited on all areas referred to in paragraphs 2, 9 and 10 as well as on areas with agricultural production referred to in paragraph 7.
10c. On areas referred to in paragraph 9 established by under-sowing grass or leguminous crops in the main crop, this prohibition shall apply from the moment of the harvesting of the main crop for at least 8 weeks or until the sowing of the next main crop.’
(5)
In Article 49(3), the following subparagraph is added:
‘A young farmer who exercises effective and long-term control over the legal person within the meaning of point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article shall, for the purposes of Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, be no more than 40 years of age in the year of the first submission of an application under the basic payment scheme or the single area payment scheme by that legal person with a young farmer in control.’
(6)
In Article 53(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:
‘The annual payment shall be expressed as the per unit amount of support. It may be either one of the following amounts, or, when the area or the number of animals eligible for the support does not exceed the area or the number of animals fixed as referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, an amount between them:
(a)
the ratio between the amount fixed for the financing of the measure as notified according to point (3)(i) of Annex I to this Regulation and the area or the number of animals eligible for the support in the year in question;
(b)
the ratio between the amount fixed for the financing of the measure as notified according to point (3)(i) of Annex I to this Regulation and the area or the number of animals fixed as referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.’
(7)
In Article 64, paragraph 5 is deleted.
(8)
Article 65(1) is amended as follows:
(a)
point (c) is amended as follows:
(i)
point (ii) is replaced by the following:
‘(ii)
the total number of farmers exempted from one or more greening practices and the number of hectares declared by such farmers, the number of farmers exempted from all practices because they comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, the number of farmers participating in the small farmer scheme, the number of farmers exempted from the crop diversification obligation, and the number of farmers exempted from the ecological focus area obligation, and the respective number of hectares declared by such farmers;’;
(ii)
point (vi) is replaced by the following:
‘(vi)
the total number of farmers declaring environmentally sensitive permanent grassland, the total number of hectares covered by environmentally sensitive permanent grassland declared by such farmers, the total number of hectares of designated environmentally sensitive permanent grasslands and the total number of hectares of permanent grassland in areas covered by Directives 92/43/EEC or 2009/147/EC;’;
(b)
the following point (e) is added:
‘(e)
by 1 August of each year, the period to be taken into account for the calculation of the shares of different crops in accordance with Article 40(1) of this Regulation, as well as the geographical level at which that period is fixed.’
(9)
In Article 67, paragraph 2 is deleted.
(10)
Annex III is added, the text of which is set out in Annex I to this Regulation.
Article 2
Amendment of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013
Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 is replaced by the text set out in Annex II to this Regulation.
Article 3
Transitional measures
1. By way of derogation from the second paragraph of Article 4, Member States may decide to apply some or all of the amendments made by points (3), (4) and (8) of Article 1 and, as a consequence, the amendment made by Article 2 in relation to standard ecological focus area features, with respect to aid applications relating to calendar year 2017.
2. Member States shall notify the Commission and shall inform farmers of the decision referred to in paragraph 1 and of the consequential changes to the notifications made pursuant to Article 65(1) to (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 no later than 1 month after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Article 4
Entry into force and application
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Points (3), (4), and (8) of Article 1 and Article 2 shall apply with respect to aid applications relating to calendar years starting as from 1 January 2018.
Points (5) and (6) of Article 1 shall apply with respect to aid applications relating to calendar years subsequent to calendar year 2014.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 February 2017.
For the Commission
The President
Jean-Claude JUNCKER
(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 608.
(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ L 181, 20.6.2014, p. 1).
(3) Council Directive 2002/57/EC of 13 June 2002 on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants (OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 74).
(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ L 227, 31.7.2014, p. 69).
(5) COM(2015) 478 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — The Mid Term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
(6) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549).
(7) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1).
(8) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1).
(9) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ L 255, 28.8.2014, p. 59).
ANNEX I

ANNEX III
Union method for the quantitative determination of the Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol content in hemp varieties
1. Scope
The method set out in this Annex seeks to determine the Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (hereinafter referred to as THC) content of varieties of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). As appropriate, the method involves applying procedure A or B as described in this Annex.
The method is based on the quantitative determination of THC by gas chromatography (GC) after extraction with a suitable solvent.
1.1. Procedure A
Procedure A shall be used for checks on the production of hemp as referred to in Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 and Article 30(g) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 (*1).
1.2. Procedure B
Procedure B shall be used in cases as referred to in Article 36(6) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014.
2. Sampling
2.1. Samples
The samples shall be taken during the day following a systematic pattern to ensure that the sample is representative of the field, but excluding the edges of the crop.
2.1.1. Procedure A: in a standing crop of a given variety of hemp, a 30 cm part containing at least one female inflorescence of each plant selected shall be taken. Sampling shall be carried out during the period running from 20 days after the start of flowering to 10 days after the end of flowering.
Member States may authorise sampling to be carried out during the period from the start of flowering to 20 days after the start of flowering provided that, for each variety grown, other representative samples are taken in accordance with the first subparagraph during the period from 20 days after the start of flowering to 10 days after the end of flowering.
For hemp cultivated as catch crop, in the absence of female inflorescences, the top 30 cm of the plant stem shall be taken. In that case sampling shall be carried out just before the end of the vegetation period, once the leaves begin presenting the first signs of yellowing, however no later than the onset of a forecast period of frost.
2.1.2. Procedure B: in a standing crop of a given variety of hemp, the upper third of each plant selected shall be taken. Sampling shall be carried out during the 10 days following the end of flowering or, for hemp cultivated as catch crop, in the absence of female inflorescences, just before the end of the vegetation period, once the leaves begin presenting the first sign of yellowing, but no later than the onset of a forecast period of frost. In the case of dioecious varieties, only female plants shall be taken.
2.2. Sample size
Procedure A: the sample shall comprise parts of 50 plants per field.
Procedure B: the sample shall comprise parts of 200 plants per field.
Each sample shall be placed in a fabric or paper bag, without crushing it, and be sent to the laboratory for analysis.
The Member State may provide for a second sample to be collected for counteranalysis, if required, to be kept either by the producer or by the body responsible for the analysis.
2.3. Drying and storage of the sample
Drying of the samples shall begin as soon as possible and, in any case, within 48 hours using any method below 70 °C.
Samples shall be dried to a constant weight and to a moisture content of between 8 % and 13 %.
After drying, the samples shall be stored without crushing them at below 25 °C in a dark place.
3. Determination of THC content
3.1. Preparation of the test sample
Stems and seeds over 2 mm in size shall be removed from the dried samples.
The dried samples shall be grinded to obtain a semi-fine powder (passing through a 1 mm mesh sieve).
The powder may be stored for 10 weeks at below 25 °C in a dark, dry place.
3.2. Reagents and extraction solution
Reagents

Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, pure for chromatographic purposes,

squalane, pure for chromatographic purposes, as an internal standard.
Extraction solution

35 mg of squalane per 100 ml hexane.
3.3. Extraction of THC
100 mg of the powdered test sample shall be weighed, be placed in a centrifuge tube and 5 ml of extraction solution shall be added containing the internal standard.
The sample shall be placed in an ultrasound bath and be left for 20 minutes. It shall be centrifuged for 5 minutes at 3 000 r.p.m. and then the supernatant THC solution shall be removed. The solution shall be injected into the chromatograph and a quantitative analysis shall be carried out.
3.4. Gas chromatography
(a) Apparatus

gas chromatograph with a flame ionisation detector and a split/splitless injector,

column allowing good separation of cannabinoids, for example a glass capillary column 25 m long and 0,22 mm in diameter impregnated with a 5 % non-polar phenyl-methyl-siloxane phase.
(b) Calibration ranges
At least three points for procedure A and five points for procedure B, including points 0,04 and 0,50 mg/ml THC in extraction solution.
(c) Experimental conditions
The following conditions are given as an example for the column referred to in (a):

oven temperature 260 °C,

injector temperature 300 °C,

detector temperature 300 °C.
(d) Volume injected: 1 μl.
4. Results
The findings shall be expressed to two decimal places in grams of THC per 100 grams of analytical sample dried to constant weight. A tolerance of 0,03 g per 100 g shall apply.

Procedure A: one determination per test sample.
However, where the result obtained is above the limit laid down in Article 32(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, a second determination shall be carried out per analysis sample and the mean value of the two determinations shall be taken as the result.

Procedure B: the result shall correspond to the mean value of two determinations per test sample.

ANNEX II

ANNEX X
Conversion and weighting factors referred to in Article 46(3)
Features
Conversion factor
(m/tree to m2)
Weighting factor
Ecological focus area
(if both factors are applied)
Land lying fallow (per 1 m2)
n.a.
1
1 m2
Terraces (per 1 m)
2
1
2 m2
Landscape features:

Hedges/wooded strips/trees in line (per 1 m)
5
2
10 m2

Isolated tree (per tree)
20
1,5
30 m2

Field copses (per 1 m2)
n.a.
1,5
1,5 m2

Ponds (per 1 m2)
n.a.
1,5
1,5 m2

Ditches (per 1 m)
5
2
10 m2

Traditional stone walls (per 1 m)
1
1
1 m2

Other features not listed above but protected under GAEC7, SMR 2 or SMR 3 (per 1 m2)
n.a.
1
1 m2
Buffer strips and field margins (per 1 m)
6
1,5
9 m2
Hectares of agro-forestry (per 1 m2)
n.a.
1
1 m2
Strips of eligible hectares along forest edges (per 1 m)

Without production
6
1,5
9 m2
With production
6
0,3
1,8 m2
Areas with short rotation coppice (per 1 m2)
n.a.
0,3
0,3 m2
Afforested areas as referred to in Article 32(2)(b)(ii) (per 1 m2)
n.a.
1
1 m2
Areas with catch crops or green cover (per 1 m2)
n.a.
0,3
0,3 m2
Areas with nitrogen-fixing crops (per 1 m2)
n.a.
0,7
0,7 m2
Conversion and weighting factors referred to in Article 46(3) to be applied to features included in the equivalent practices as listed in Section III of Annex IX
Equivalent ecological focus area
Similar standard ecological focus area
Conversion factor
Weighting factor
Ecological focus area (if both factors are applied)
(1)
Ecological set-aside (per 1 m2)
Land lying fallow
n.a.
1
1 m2
(2)
Creation of “buffer zones” (per 1 m)
Buffer strips and field margins
6
1,5
9 m2
(3)
Management of uncultivated buffer strips and field margins (per 1 m)
Buffer strips and field margins
6
1,5
9 m2
(4)
Borders, in-field strips and patches:

Borders, in-field strips (per 1 m)
Buffer strips and field margins
6
1,5
9 m2
Patches (per 1 m2)
Field copses
n.a.
1,5
1,5 m2
(5)
Management of landscape features:

Isolated tree (per tree)
Isolated tree
20
1,5
30 m2
Trees in line (per 1 m)
Hedges/wooded strips/trees in line
5
2
10 m2
Group of trees/Field copses (per 1 m2)
Field copses
n.a.
1,5
1,5 m2
Hedgerows (per 1m)
Hedges/wooded strips/trees in line
5
2
10 m2
Riparian woody vegetation (per 1m)
Hedges/wooded strips/trees in line
5
2
10 m2
Terraces (per 1m)
Terraces
2
1
2 m2
Stone walls (per 1m)
Traditional stone walls
1
1
1 m2
Ditches (per 1m)
Ditches
5
2
10 m2
Ponds (per 1 m2)
Ponds
n.a.
1,5
1,5 m2
(6)
Keeping arable peaty or wet soils under grass (no use of fertilisers and no use of plant protection products) (per 1 m2)
Land lying fallow
n.a.
1
1 m2
(7)
Production on arable land with no use of fertiliser and/or plant protection products, and not irrigated, not sown with the same crop two years in a row (per 1 m2)
Areas with short rotation coppice; Strips along forest edges with production; Areas with nitrogen-fixing crops
n.a.
0,3
0,7 for nitrogen-fixing crops
0,3 m2
0,7 m2
(8)
Conversion of arable land into permanent grassland (per 1 m2)
Land lying fallow
n.a.
1
1 m2