WRITTEN QUESTION P-2713/97 by Lutz Goepel (PPE) to the Commission (28 July 1997)

Subject: Breakdown of EAGGF, Guarantee Section, resources by Member State and breakdown of resources in respect of certain income support measures

The 1992 reform of the CAP significantly changed the manner in which agriculture is supported. Nonetheless, various quarters have claimed that, even after the reform, certain Member States, certain agricultural production sectors and farms of a certain size have been the particular beneficiaries of payments from the EAGGF, Guarantee Section. With regard to the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, in the budgets for the years 1993-1996, can the Commission indicate:

1. the proportion of the resources of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, provided by the various Member States and the amount of those resources channelled back to the Member States, bearing in mind the fact that, for example, export refunds made to a Member State are not necessarily related to a product that originated in the same Member State;

2. the basis of assessment for the alleged overpayment in the cereals sector, the total amount and the period involved in the alleged overpayment, as well as the breakdown of this alleged overpayment by Member State and, where appropriate, by region and by type and by size of farm;

3. the truth or otherwise of the claim that 20% of farms received 80% of EAGGF resources. If the claim is false, please give a breakdown of EAGGF resources allocated to agricultural holdings in the various EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

1. A table of expenditure by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, from 1993 to 1996 broken down by Member State has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

As the Honourable Member points out, some expenditure within a Member State may relate to products from another Member State. Since the existence of a single market and common agricultural policy are leading to increasing integration of the economies of the Member States, it is not possible to state the exact amount by which the economy of a particular Member State has benefited.

There is no specific financing earmarked for the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, which is financed from the own resources contributed to the general budget.

2. The Commission has sent Parliament the working paper ((SEC(97) 1183. )) which puts at about ECU 8 500 million the over-compensation paid to cereal producers as compared with figures expected as a result of the reform in July 1992. In view of the global approach adopted by the Commission, this amount is to be regarded as indicative.

The Commission has carried out a general analysis for the Community as a whole but no detailed analysis by Member State or type of holding

3. The statement that 20% of agricultural holdings benefit from 80% of the support provided by the EAGGF was made by the Commission in 1991 when launching its proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. The 1992 reform made some limited progress in this respect. But agricultural support, while now more transparent, continues to be largely proportional to farm size and past economic performance. In its communication Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000. )), which was tabled on 16 July 1997, the Commission addresses this problem. It first announces its intention to propose the introduction of an individual ceiling covering all direct payments granted under the common market organisations. It then proposes to allow Member States to introduce differentiation criteria according to commonly agreed rules. While excluding re-nationalisation, this is based on the idea that Member States are better placed than the Commission to define differentiation criteria adapted to their specific problems.