WRITTEN QUESTION E-1736/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Allocation of rural development aid to Portugal.
Date: 1999-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EAGGF Guidance Section, Portugal, common agricultural policy, distribution of aid, less-favoured agricultural area, rural development, sustainable development, terms for aid

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/15

The differentiation of whether Nitrogen (N) pollution arises from agricultural or industrial sources can be
made in two ways. Firstly by evaluating inputs from the different sources in the water basin, with
measurements at emission and models (cf. appendix 3 of the guideline, and (cid:145)OSPAR(cid:146) Harp guidelines for
industrial pollution, and nitrogen retention in soil and water cycle), and secondly with the help of isotopic
analysis (N15/N14 rate is different in organic N from human or animal origin, and in chemical N from
fertilisers and factories, cf. page 10 of the guideline).

Exceptional climatic conditions such as drought and wet summers effectively influence nitrates leaching in
sub soil or run off, and water quality. For that reason, it is proposed to study the evolution of nitrates in
water at some representative points not only during one year in every four years (minimum required by
the directive), but also through permanent monitoring (each month for surface water, twice a year for
ground waters), in order to appreciate evolution on four year average values, with possible extrapolation to
other sampling points (see pages 5-6 of reporting guidelines). In any case, action programmes should
ensure enough precautionary measures (such as large manure storage, winter cover of soils, moderate
fertilisation, buffer zones) to avoid major adverse effects of difficult climatic conditions in vulnerable zones.

The circulation of poultry and other livestock manure is restricted by Council Directive 92/118/EEC of
17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and
imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific
Community rules referred to in Annex A(1) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to
Directive 90/425/EEC (2) and Commission Decision 96/103 (3). They are organic waste with hygienic and
toxicologic potential problems, and cannot circulate within the Community, or outside, without guarantees
for environment, animal and human health. This circulation is possible only after appropriate treatment
and quality controls (chemical and micro biological parameters). The Commission is not aware of
particular limitations in the trading of this product resulting from the implementation of the above
legislation. The Commission would welcome any additional information from the Honourable Member
about any trade problems experienced by individuals in compliance with these criteria.

In addition, the shipment of poultry and other livestock manure is governed by Council Regulation
259/93 (4) on the supervision and control of waste shipments based on the principle of prior informed
consent.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993.
(3) OJ L 24, 31.1.1996.
(4) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

(2000/C 225 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1736/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Allocation of rural development aid to Portugal

According to recent press reports in Portugal, the Commission has approved a proposal for the allocation
of rural development aid which will involve the annual transfer to Portugal of only 40 billion escudos.

The Portuguese Government, however, proposed a programme costing 60 billion escudos per year, this
being the minimum amount it regarded as necessary to compensate for the reduction in the funding
transferred from the CAP, since Portuguese farmers are last on the list of CAP beneficiaries.

Since Portugal is a country with large areas of poor-quality soil, where farmers operate in mountainous
areas and use environmentally sustainable agricultural methods,
it is a prime candidate for the rural
development policy proposals which appeared to have been adopted by the Commission.

C 225 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

What reasons led the Commission to allocate Portugal only 40 billion escudos per year for rural
development, even though it knew that Portugal is the country most affected by the increasing liberal-
isation of agricultural markets and that Portuguese farmers(cid:146) incomes are in constant decline?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

On 8 September 1999 the Commission decided on an indicative allocation by Member State of the
allocations under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section for rural
development measures for the period 2000 to 2006. The criteria for this allocation include the number of
agricultural holdings, the area covered by farming, the rural population and the share of farming in
employment. Portugal(cid:146)s allocation amounts to EUR 200 million a year.

This allocation, which is 46,5 % up on the average annual financing for the same measures in the previous
period (1994-1999), is intended to contribute to expenditure under four schemes only: early retirement,
agri-environmental measures, afforestation and aid for less-favoured areas; all other rural development
measures are financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section from the overall Structural Fund financing allotted
to Portugal.

It is also worth bearing in mind that these allocations are quite flexible. First, the Commission is willing,
within the limits of available resources, to adjust decisions on Member States(cid:146) allocations in the first three
years, in accordance with Article 46(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on
support for rural development by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and
amending and repealing certain Regulations (1). Secondly, under the detailed rules adopted by the
Commission in July 1999 for the application of rural development programmes, resources made available
in view of initial expenditure forecasts but not used by a Member State in the course of the year may
(beyond a certain percentage) be reallocated to Member States that have overrun their forecast expenditure.
It should be possible, with this flexibility, to cope with unforeseen situations, even though over the period
as a whole the Member States must work within the allocation fixed in the Commission Decision.

Moreover, Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common
rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (2) provides for (cid:145)modulation(cid:146) of
payments under common market organisations, so as to provide additional support for the four above-
mentioned rural development schemes.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1759/99

by Wolfgang Kreissl-D(cid:246)rfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Commission policy (DG VIII) on combating poverty in developing countries

In his written answers to the EP questionnaire, the Commission Member responsible for development,
Mr Nielson, asserted that overcoming poverty had to be at the centre of our efforts.

Can the Commission provide more detailed information on current and future strategies to combat
poverty in developing countries, covering the following aspects in particular:

1. What operational areas are covered by DG VIII policy on combating poverty (e.g. basic education,
training, health, infrastructures, in particular water supply, sewerage and roads, social security systems,
food supply, etc)?