WRITTEN QUESTION E-2863/00 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission. Common agricultural policy: Field margins.
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural land, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, plot, sustainable development

C 163 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Finally, the fight against organised crime in general and trafficking of human beings in particular is being
fully addressed in the framework of different regional initiatives such as the stability pact for South-Eastern
Europe and the Adriatic initiative, based on the Ancona Declaration of 19/20 May 2000.

(1) See p. 9.

(2001/C 163 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2863/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Common agricultural policy: Field margins

How does the Commission envisage the attainment of its stated objective of sustainable farming whilst
strictly enforcing the current rules requiring a maximum two-metre field margin between the field
boundary and the cropped area in order to be eligible for Arable Area Payments without financial penalty?

Regulations (EC) 1257/1999 (1) and 1259/1999 (2) provide various instruments for the promotion of
sustainable farming that protects the environment. Can the Commission confirm whether, and in what
way, these might be used to prevent the strict implementation of the two-metre rule in cases where that
rule would require hedgerows to be removed in order to meet its requirements?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 113.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2000)

The Commission is aware that there seems to be a need for clarifying whether, and to what extent, field
margins and especially areas planted with hedgerows can be considered as part of agricultural parcels
eligible for arable area support needs. The Commission has been confronted with a similar problem
involving trees in an agricultural parcel, for which legislative provisions have been made in Article 2(1) of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying
the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (1). The Commission
is currently looking at the various possibilities for a legislative solution. The Commission is committed to
improving and maintaining the rural environment in the context of the common agricultural policy. It
considers hedges and field ditches to be of great importance for wildlife and other environmental functions
across the whole farming spectrum, especially those which are more intensively managed. The Commis-
sion has, however to ensure that only eligible land benefits from the support scheme of arable crops.

The Honourable Member asks how the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May
1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of
17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural
policy, might be used to protect field margins.

Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 provides a framework under which Member States draw up, at the
appropriate geographic level, rural development plans which are submitted for Commission approval.
A range of measures can be implemented under these plans and benefit from Community co-financing
within a financial envelope fixed at Member State level. All plans are required to include an agri-
environment measure, the aim of which is to support particular production methods designed to protect
the environment and to maintain the countryside. The detailed prescription of agri-environment measures
is primarily the responsibility of Member States in order to ensure such measures are well-targeted to the

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/17

needs of the region concerned, but might include offering support to farmers for establishing, maintaining
or restoring traditional field boundaries if this goes beyond usual good farming practice in the area
concerned.

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 states that Member States shall take the environmental
measures they consider to be appropriate in view of the situation of the agricultural land used or the
production concerned and which reflect the potential environmental effects. These measures may include
support in return for agri-environmental commitments (under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, as above),
general mandatory environmental requirements and also specific environmental requirements constituting
a condition for direct payments. This third possibility could include requiring farmers to maintain
environmentally beneficial
landscape features, such as hedgerows, as a condition to receive direct aid
payments.

(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992.

(2001/C 163 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: EU chemicals policy

What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the number of chemicals in use across the EU which should be
subjected to safety-testing procedures, and:

(cid:129) how many animals would have to be killed in order to carry out such tests;

(cid:129) what type of animals would these include;

(cid:129) what measures would the Commission recommend to reduce the number of tests on live animals?

(2001/C 163 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3071/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Testing of chemicals on animals

It has been brought to my attention that the DG for the Environment is developing plans to test old
stockpiled chemicals on animals. I understand that this could involve between three and ten million
animals.

Following sustained criticism, the United States has scaled down the number of proposed experiments. The
Commission has set itself a target of reducing the number of experiments by 50 % by the year 2000. Does
the Commission believe that it will achieve that target?

Does it regard the proposed testing on animals as a proper use of resources?

What alternatives have been considered?