WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2713/97 by Lutz GOEPEL to the Commission. Breakdown of EAGGF, Guarantee Section, resources by Member State and breakdown of resources in respect of certain income support measures
Date: 1997-07-28
Institutions: European Parliament, GOEPEL
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU Member State, EU financing, aid system, aid to agriculture, area of holding, general budget (EU), reform of the CAP

3. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 102/101

(98/C 102/146)

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. 

2. 

3. 

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;

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;

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(cid:146)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.

The Commission has sent Parliament the working paper (1) which puts at about ECU 8 500 million the
2.
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 (2), 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.

(1)  SEC(97) 1183.
(2)  COM(97) 2000.