# CE2004078EN.01057601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/576 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/576

---

(2004/C 78 E/0609)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3527/03

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

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

Subject:

In paragraph 77 of its Special Report 4/2003 (1), the Court of Auditors of the EC states, inter alia, that the Commission should perform an in-depth review of the existing classifications of all the less-favoured areas. In its reply the Commission states, inter alia, that the evaluation of the existing programmes will yield new information for use in a review.

1

| 1. | On the basis of the new information obtained by means of monitoring and evaluation, has the Commission concluded that the existing classifications of less-favoured areas are no longer valid and that overcompensation therefore needs to be prevented or is inevitable in the existing programmes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On the basis of the new information obtained by means of monitoring and evaluation, has the Commission concluded that the existing classifications of less-favoured areas are no longer valid and that overcompensation therefore needs to be prevented or is inevitable in the existing programmes?

| 2. | If the Commission can confirm this, what corrective action has it now taken? If the Commission denies that the classifications are invalid, can it provide the requisite information for this and can it explicitly state that the existing classifications are valid and can be applied accurately so that the possibility of overcompensation may reasonably be deemed to be ruled out? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Commission can confirm this, what corrective action has it now taken? If the Commission denies that the classifications are invalid, can it provide the requisite information for this and can it explicitly state that the existing classifications are valid and can be applied accurately so that the possibility of overcompensation may reasonably be deemed to be ruled out?

| 3. | Does the Commission now have a clear and workable definition of the phenomenon of overcompensation, as this concept is not defined in Directive 75/268/EEC (2) or Regulation 1257/1999 (3) or in ancillary legislation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission now have a clear and workable definition of the phenomenon of overcompensation, as this concept is not defined in Directive 75/268/EEC (2) or Regulation 1257/1999 (3) or in ancillary legislation?

2

3

| 4. | Is the Commission confident — and can it prove — that expenditure under the LFA scheme is now legal and regular? Can it also provide information to show that the enormous disparities in amounts of compensation per hectare or per farm between regions and Member States are justified? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission confident — and can it prove — that expenditure under the LFA scheme is now legal and regular? Can it also provide information to show that the enormous disparities in amounts of compensation per hectare or per farm between regions and Member States are justified?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

(18 December 2003)

Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period are due for presentation by the Member States before the end of the year and will include the less favoured area measure. A conspectus of these evaluations will be available in 2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations and from the ex-post evaluations. The evaluations at present available to the Commission are for the previous programming period (1994-1999).

The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (4) measures for improvement of agricultural structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation:

4

| — | 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 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 uniformity in definition of support in these areas can however be considered as a contributory factor in undercompensation in most of them and in overcompensation in those where the handicap is small or even insignificant when comparison is made with ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

the lack of uniformity in definition of support in these areas can however be considered as a contributory factor in undercompensation in most of them and in overcompensation in those where the handicap is small or even insignificant when comparison is made with ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State.

The list of less favoured areas was finalised in the 90s and has changed very little since then. Under the new Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (5) it is the Member States themselves that delimit the areas using the common criteria set in that Regulation. The quantitative criteria in the explanatory memorandum to Directive 75/268/CEE (6) are still used as guidelines for classification. Before the new rural development Regulation for the next programming period is proposed all measures, including that for less favoured areas, will be reviewed in the light of the evaluations available.

5

6

Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 states that allowances are to compensate adequately for the handicap (principle of proportionality) but must not go beyond what is adequate, i.e. overcompensation is prohibited.

It falls to the Member States to put the principle of compensation into practice. Differences between them in amount granted per hectare reflect differences in productivity per hectare and differences in the support per farm reflect structural disparities linked to farm size.

---

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

1

(2)  OJ L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

3

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

4

(5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

5

(6)  Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less favoured areas, OJ L 128, 19.5.1975.

6

---