WRITTEN QUESTION E-3454/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Limited chances of survival for farms modernised on the basis of the Common agricultural policy.
Date: 2000-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, agricultural holding, agricultural productivity, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, farm prices, farmers' income, reform of the CAP, security of supply

C 163 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Unfortunately, these negotiations have not had a productive outcome. Parliament has decided to use its
infrastructure in Brussels (cid:129) originally planned to house the (cid:145)Centre inter-institutionnelle d(cid:146)achats(cid:146) (cid:129) for
other purposes and to examine other options, including the opening of a (cid:145)night shop(cid:146) and a (cid:145)virtual shop(cid:146),
to meet potential consumer needs.

In July of this year the Commission made decisions on the basis of its Peer Group Review (undertaken to
match resources to priority activities) to abandon or reduce certain activities that were judged not to be
among the (cid:145)core(cid:146)
from
engagement in the operation of the Economats and, consequently, the closure of those shops.

the Institution. Those decisions included the proposed withdrawal

tasks of

Naturally, the Commission understands the desirability of accessible shopping facilities for personnel. In
the period before the proposed closure of the Economats, therefore, the Commission is analysing the
possibilities of launching a call for tender with a view to identifying private operators interested in
delivering products ordered directly by Commission staff and other potential consumers.

(2001/C 163 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3454/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Limited chances of survival for farms modernised on the basis of the Common agricultural policy

1.
Does the Commission still regard as a success the agricultural policy which has been conducted since
the first steps were taken towards European integration in the 1950s, and which has led to an increase in
scale, mechanisation, massive investment on the basis of loans, high volumes and yields and a huge loss of
jobs?

How does the Commission judge the fact that, in the Netherlands, where the policy referred to in
2.
question 1 has entailed radical adjustment, the large volumes of food produced have led to less of an
extent than anticipated to higher revenues, whilst the costs of land acquisition and investment have proved
higher than expected, leaving many farmers with a low income despite high capital investment and high
turnover?

3.
Is the Commission familiar with an article by Peter Vereijken in the (cid:145)Volkskrant(cid:146) of 18 October 2000?
The article points out that the average age of farmers in the Netherlands is continuing to rise (it is
currently 53). It also states that 50 % of production comes from cultivation under glass and small livestock
kept in houses, which account for just 1 % of the 2 million hectares of land used for agriculture. In
contrast, the total output of dairy farmers and arable farmers is barely rising, but accounts for 90 % of the
agricultural area. The author takes the view that the agricultural sector cannot survive in the face of cheap
imports which are the result of low wages and low environmental standards.

Can the Commission confirm that,

in Member States in which a radical restructuring of the
4.
agricultural sector has taken place,
farmers cannot survive on the basis of the market and will be
dependent in the long term on subsidies, for example being paid by the national authorities for their role
as managers of the countryside carrying out extensive farming?

5.
Does the Commission consider it possible to continue in the long term to subsidise from the
European budget farmers on modernised holdings, in addition to small farmers in Southern Europe and in
future eastern Member States, or does it assume that it is necessary for the survival of the agricultural
sector for the price of food to rise sharply?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

1.
Increasing productivity and assuring the availability of supplies constitute prime objectives of the
common agricultural policy (CAP), as set out in the EC Treaty. European agricultural production has
increased so rapidly and massively that the Community has become an exporter of agricultural products,

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/127

and structural surpluses have built up in some sectors. From that point of view, the CAP has been a victim
of its own success. A series of reforms have been undertaken in order to adjust the CAP in line with
developments in the markets, the countryside and society. In the 1980s, measures were adopted to limit
surpluses and have more control over supply. At the same time, rural development measures were
rethought and consolidated so as to provide better back-up for agriculture(cid:146)s structural adjustment. In the
1990s a major new step was taken in the reform process, with the reduction in support prices being offset
by introducing direct aid and back-up measures (cid:129) including agri-environmental measures and early
retirement aid. This trend continued with Agenda 2000 and has been supplemented by new mechanisms,
in particular the modulation of direct aid. Moreover, rural development has become the second pillar of
the CAP, and a number of measures (cid:129) in particular the agri-environmental scheme (cid:129) have been
enhanced.

2.
According to the Commission(cid:146)s analyses, the Netherlands is among the top three in terms of average
income per agricultural worker (measured as net value added at factor cost). Admittedly, the average
income of farmers (cid:129) and particularly stock farmers (cid:129) in the Netherlands fell in 1998 and 1999. This was
mainly caused by the drop in the price of pigmeat, beef and veal, and by the consequences of the
epidemics which affected the sectors concerned; the same effects were also felt in other Member States.
However,
income increased significantly in the Netherlands
(by 22 % between 1993 and 1997) as in most other Member States.

in preceding years average agricultural

3.
The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for providing a copy of the article to which he
refers. It is interesting both for its analysis of the development of Dutch agriculture and for the options
examined. The share accounted for by specialised production (cid:129) in particular fruit and vegetables and
horticultural products (cid:129) has increased sharply, while livestock products(cid:146) share has fallen. However, milk
and beef and veal (cid:129) which receive considerable direct support under the CAP (cid:129) still account for almost
30 % of the Netherlands(cid:146) final agricultural production. The comparison of (cid:145)mono-intensive(cid:146) with (cid:145)multi-
extensive(cid:146)
farmers is interesting. Promoting the (cid:145)multi-extensive(cid:146) model reflects the multifunctional
agriculture objective pursued in the CAP, particularly through the rural development pillar.

4.
Protection at the border and the guaranteed price system result in European market prices being
maintained above reference prices on world markets. The reduction in guaranteed prices and the increase
in direct aid make support for agriculture more transparent and more evident. Direct aid represents an
It also offsets the cost of activities which are connected with
important part of
in particular the contribution to regional
agricultural production but not paid for by the market,
development and maintenance of the countryside.
In return, environmental requirements have been
introduced and Member States may make aid conditional on compliance with such requirements.

farmers(cid:146)

income.

5.
There is unlikely to be a significant and lasting increase in the price of basic agricultural products.
Instead, the long-term trend in real terms is downward. But that does not preclude certain foodstuffs(cid:146) value
added from increasing, in particular those whose characteristics meet consumer requirements. The CAP
does not relieve farmers of their responsibility to take consumer needs into account. The reforms
undertaken in the 1990s were specifically designed to make agriculture more market-oriented, while
encouraging farmers to meet the new demands not only of consumers but of society as a whole. Support
granted under the common organisation of markets and in the rural development context must likewise
evolve in keeping with society(cid:146)s requirements.

(2001/C 163 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3457/00

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Commission office in Stockholm

From the outset the Office of the Commission Representation in Stockholm has seen a succession of
scandals, most recently the method of dealing with the financial irregularities which occurred there over a
lengthy period. Four local staff have recently lost their jobs because of these irregularities, but the senior
officials either remain at their posts in the office or have been moved on to better ones.