EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/152

(2004/C 33 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1663/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Support for horticultural production

Article 53, entitled ‘Agricultural use of the land’, of the proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and support schemes for producers of certain crops (1), states that ‘farmers may use their land for any agricultural activity except for permanent crops’.

This means that farmers who have hitherto used their land for arable crops, and who will receive a decoupled subsidy once the new regulation has come into force, will be able to use these areas for fruit and vegetables without consequently losing their entitlement to this support.

This will give rise to a serious distortion in the functioning of the sector, given that traditional fruit and vegetable producers who do not receive any direct support will be competing in the same market with new producers who were previously producing arable crops and do receive this type of subsidy.

Account must also be taken of the fact that, under the current regulations, fruit and vegetables produced on this land will also be eligible for the already scant resources which the EU sets aside for the fruit and vegetable sector, and which will henceforth have to be shared among a larger number of farmers.

This is even more surprising bearing in mind that, in the earlier version of the reform proposal, i.e. the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 10 July 2002 (2), this possibility was ruled out and a clear indication was given, on page 20 of the English version in the section headed ‘scope of the scheme’, that ‘at this stage, cultivation of fruit and vegetables would not be eligible for support under the new scheme’.

Furthermore, neither the recitals nor the explanatory memorandum to COM(2003)23 final make any reference to the reasons for this change.

Why has the Commission decided to propose allowing the cultivation of vegetables in areas which will receive decoupled support once the CAP reform has come into force?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

On 21 January 2003 the Commission sent its proposed reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (3) to the Council of ministers of agriculture of the Union and to Parliament. The proposals for regulations included one establishing common rules for direct support schemes and support schemes for producers of certain crops.

Article 53 of that draft Regulation proposes a ban on cultivating permanent crops (e.g. fruit trees, vines, hot-house crops) on land eligible for the direct payment. This means the proposal currently being discussed by the Council and Parliament would allow the growing of annual fruit crops and horticultural crops.

A number of representatives of traditional producers of fruits and vegetables have already expressed concern about possible distortions of competition which this authorisation might provoke.

Because of the difficulties of carrying out checks, the Commission would have preferred to authorise the growing of the crops in question on land eligible for the direct payment to the exclusion proposed in the July 2002 Communication on the medium-term review.

However, at the meeting of the Council of Union ministers of agriculture in Luxembourg on 8 April 2003, the Member of the Commission responsible for agriculture indicated his willingness to solve this problem.

During that Council meeting, he stated that a producer who received the single payment per farm should normally be free to take decisions about what to do with the land. However, it was possible that in some regions this could create competitive disadvantages for traditional producers specialising in fruit and vegetables. It therefore seemed acceptable to ensure that the Member States could ban the growing of fruit and vegetables on land eligible for a direct payment.

(1) COM(2003) 23 final.

(2) COM(2002) 394 final.

(3) COM(2003) 23 final.