# CE2004078EN.01057201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/572 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/572

---

(2004/C 78 E/0606)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/03

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 concerning rural development: support for less-favoured areas

Subject:

In its reply to paragraph 78 of the Special Report, the Commission states that it is to carry out an overall analysis of the impact of the support scheme for less-favoured areas by the end of 2003 (1).

1

| 1. | Has the Commission in the meantime carried out an overall assessment of the impact of the support provided to less-favoured areas over past decades? If so, when will this assessment be forwarded to Parliament? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission in the meantime carried out an overall assessment of the impact of the support provided to less-favoured areas over past decades? If so, when will this assessment be forwarded to Parliament? If not, why not?

| 2. | In the course of producing its assessment, has the Commission been able to make use of, or will it be able to make use of, information and assessments provided by Member States or by national or regional auditing authorities concerning support for less-favoured areas? Is the Commission prepared to provide a summary of the reports received? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the course of producing its assessment, has the Commission been able to make use of, or will it be able to make use of, information and assessments provided by Member States or by national or regional auditing authorities concerning support for less-favoured areas? Is the Commission prepared to provide a summary of the reports received?

| 3. | What guarantees does the Commission have that the assessments and information provided by Member States are comprehensive and reliable? Is the data suitable for mutual comparison between Member States? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What guarantees does the Commission have that the assessments and information provided by Member States are comprehensive and reliable? Is the data suitable for mutual comparison between Member States?

| 4. | ‘Cross-compliance’ requirements are expected to play a significant part in the common agricultural policy. The way in which these requirements — for example, ‘good agricultural practice’ — are incorporated in the support scheme for less-favoured areas is highly unsatisfactory. This is mainly because the concepts and standards applied are vague and ambiguous. How and when does the Commission intend to eliminate this shortcoming? |
| --- | --- |

4.

‘Cross-compliance’ requirements are expected to play a significant part in the common agricultural policy. The way in which these requirements — for example, ‘good agricultural practice’ — are incorporated in the support scheme for less-favoured areas is highly unsatisfactory. This is mainly because the concepts and standards applied are vague and ambiguous. How and when does the Commission intend to eliminate this shortcoming?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

(26 January 2004)

| 1. and 2. | Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period, including the less-favoured area measure, were to be presented by the Member States by the end of 2003, which was done for almost all programmes. A Community-level conspectus of these evaluations will be available in 2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations, from the ex-post evaluations and from a special evaluation of the less-favoured areas.
  The evaluation at present available to the Commission is for the previous programming period (1994-1999). That Community-level evaluation analysed whether the policy objectives defined in the relevant Regulations were achieved, and uses the national ex-post evaluation reports to support and illustrate the analysis.
  The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (2) measures for improvement of agricultural structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation:






  — | the support system for the less-favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the impact of natural disadvantages on production costs, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1. and 2.

Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period, including the less-favoured area measure, were to be presented by the Member States by the end of 2003, which was done for almost all programmes. A Community-level conspectus of these evaluations will be available in 2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations, from the ex-post evaluations and from a special evaluation of the less-favoured areas.

The evaluation at present available to the Commission is for the previous programming period (1994-1999). That Community-level evaluation analysed whether the policy objectives defined in the relevant Regulations were achieved, and uses the national ex-post evaluation reports to support and illustrate the analysis.

The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (2) measures for improvement of agricultural structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation:

2

—

the support system for the less-favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the impact of natural disadvantages on production costs,

| — | the lack of a common, standard definition of support in these areas may, however, be a factor explaining the undercompensation in some of them and the overcompensation in some of those where the handicap is small or even insignificant compared to the ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

the lack of a common, standard definition of support in these areas may, however, be a factor explaining the undercompensation in some of them and the overcompensation in some of those where the handicap is small or even insignificant compared to the ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State concerned.

| 3. | The quality of the evaluations made at national level is ensured by applying the relevant common rules specifying the scope of the evaluations and how they are to be carried out (Articles 54 to 57 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (3)). Those rules also require common evaluation questions to be defined and a common structure for the reports to be followed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The quality of the evaluations made at national level is ensured by applying the relevant common rules specifying the scope of the evaluations and how they are to be carried out (Articles 54 to 57 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (3)). Those rules also require common evaluation questions to be defined and a common structure for the reports to be followed.

3

| 4. | Under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4), by 1 January 2005 Member States must define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions on the basis of Annex IV to that Regulation, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic conditions. Those standards will facilitate implementation of good farming practice as defined in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002, entailing, as a minimum, compliance with the general mandatory environmental requirements. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4), by 1 January 2005 Member States must define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions on the basis of Annex IV to that Regulation, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic conditions. Those standards will facilitate implementation of good farming practice as defined in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002, entailing, as a minimum, compliance with the general mandatory environmental requirements.

4

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 27.6.2003, p. 23.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures, OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.

3

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

4

---