WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Unpaid-for environmental damage and compensation for the competitive disadvantage suffered by agricultural producers who have carried out extensive environmental protection measures

1. Does the Commission believe that the environmental costs caused by agriculture, at the expense of other actors within society or liable to be passed on to future generations, also ought to be a factor in determining the sustainability of agricultural systems, in particular the consequences of disruption to the mineral balance because of ammonia, nitrates and phosphates stemming from large-scale feed imports and highly toxic fertilisers and because of copper and cadmium stemming from the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides?

2. Why is the agricultural sector still exempt from the polluter pays principle, now generally applicable, now that holdings must pay for preventive measures but, in general, not for the pollution itself?

3. Does the fact that agricultural income is unconventially produced, by comparison with other sectors (little paid employment, a large number of family farms), help to ensure that the easiest way to obtain savings in this part of the economy is through lower costs and addressing environmental impact?

4. Can the Commission subscribe to the proposition that organic holdings' products would be cheaper on the market, by comparison, than products from the most widespread type of holdings if the latter had to pay for the environmental harm caused by that type of farming?

5. Does the Commission agree that passing on environmental costs, referred to in the previous questions, can be regarded as a form of unfair competition, in this particular instance between conventional and organic farming?

6. Does the Commission see scope within the agricultural sector, as is also being sought within transport, for internalisation of environmental costs, i.e. on the basis of a comparison of production costs, holdings causing the least pollution would be given preferential treatment?

7. Will the possibility of internalisation be expressly included in the groundwork for the change, projected to take place over the next few years, in the use of funding for the common agricultural policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

1. The Commission is, indeed, convinced that agriculture, as any other sector or individual citizen, has to respect environmental standards and reduce environmental costs in line with society's expectations. The Commission believes that this is a precondition for achieving sustainable development in agriculture. This view has been underlined by explicitly mentioning Environmental Protection Requirements among the Common Rules for Direct Support Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy (Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999)(1).

2. The Commission would like to underline that agriculture is by no means exempt from the polluter pays principle. As it is the case for any other sector, farmers have to observe their obligations under environmental legislation at their own costs. Such legislation has been established both at Community and Member States level and encompasses a wide range of environmental issues such as the prevention of pollution from farm inputs (nitrates and plant protection products) and the preservation of habitats and biodiversity.

3. Farmers face competition in the market place and economical viability means foremost to produce at competitive costs. Of course, competitiveness must not be achieved at the expense of the environment. Therefore, farmers, as any other producer or citizen, must act subject to clearly defined rules with respect to the environment.

4. The Commission does not believe that organic production becomes less expensive by confronting conventional farmers with stricter and, therefore, more costly environmental constraints. However, one would assume that establishing higher environment standards would improve the competitive position of organic farming vis-à-vis conventional farmers as long as the organic farmers manage to comply with such standards at lower costs.

5. Since both conventional farming and organic farming are subject to the same mandatory environmental standards, the Commission would not support a view according to which the competition between organic and conventional farming is unfair, provided that the environmental standards are effectively enforced by Member States, which is often not the situation. The Commission does, however, acknowledge that organic farming provides environmental benefits beyond legally binding standards. The provision of such benefits by organic farming give cause to granting agri-environmental payments, calculated on the basis of cost differences between organic and conventional farming. Whereas paying organic farmers is eligible as an agri-environment measure under Rural Development Programmes, Member States apply this measure to a greater or lesser extend.

6. It is the very meaning of internalising environmental costs, in line with the polluter pays principle, that the costs of observing obligations under environment legislation remain with the potential polluter. Therefore, the Commission would be reluctant to reward compliance with mandatory environment requirements. A different situation is given where farmers commit themselves to deliver environmental benefits beyond the level of mandatory environmental requirements. Beyond this reference level, in agriculture normally referred to as good farming practice, one would consider the farmer to use his factors of production for delivering valuable environmental payments. And it is only straightforward to encourage the provision of such services through financial incentives as it is done on a voluntary, contractual basis under the agri-environment measures.

7. As the Commission expressed clearly in the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development presented at Gothenburg, the reinforcement of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and, in particular, the agri-environment measures belong to the top priorities in further developing the CAP.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.