WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2712/98 by Anneli HULTHÉN to the Commission. Agricultural aid for small farms
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HULTHEN
Subjects: agricultural holding, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, development aid, farm income, production aid, smallholding

C 142/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.5.1999

(1999/C 142/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2712/98

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Agricultural aid for small farms

Aid to agriculture in the Community seems to be geared mainly towards larger farms. There are regions in
Sweden where small and medium-sized farms predominate. Such farms will find it difficult in future to
compete with larger holdings which benefit from support schemes. What prospects does the Commission
see for increasing the support provided to smaller farms?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The size of an agricultural enterprise is not always the appropriate indicator of wealth. Small and medium
sized farms may, for instance, be specialized in certain production systems or provide additional services
which allow an income per hectare or per animal significantly higher than average. Furthermore, families
running a small or medium sized farm very often have developed non-farm sources of income. The
influence of agricultural income policy is therefore limited in the case of small or medium sized part time
farms.

While the Commission has on many occasions expressed its dissatisfaction with the way expenditure is
shared between producers, it has proved very difficult to modulate payments in favour of small producers
at Community level. Criteria that seem adequate in some situations have negative side-effects in others.
For instance, large farms may employ many people and in this case size would not be an adequate criterion
of modulation.

What the Commission has proposed in the context of Agenda 2000 is that Member States should be given
the power to modulate direct payments according to the specific situation in every Member State but
respecting commonly agreed rules. This is an application of the principle of subsidiarity, based on the idea
that Member States know the real situation better than the Commission and are capable of defining
modulation criteria adapted to their specific problems. Member States may decide to reduce the amounts
of direct payments in cases where the labour force used on their holdings falls short of limits to be
determined by the Member States.

The Commission also has proposed to introduce a proportional reduction covering all direct payments
granted under common market organizations when the sum of these payments exceeds a ceiling of ECU
100 000. This will lead to degressivity in the direct payments big producers can receive per hectare or per
animal.

Furthermore, the Community will continue to support structural adaptations in the framework of a
renewed rural development policy. In this context, eligibility of part-time farmers for Community support
will be increased significantly.

(1999/C 142/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2716/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Threatened ban on an Egyptian peace movement

1.

Is the Council aware of the existence of an Egyptian peace movement?

2.
Is the Council aware that the Egyptian peace movement and the Israeli ‘Peace Now’ movement
recently issued a joint declaration on the Middle East peace process and that this resulted in violent
protests in Egypt?