WRITTEN QUESTION P-1233/01 by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission. Investment aid to farmers' joint undertakings.
Date: 2001-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, agricultural machinery, competence of the Member States, cooperation on agriculture, farmer, grouping of farms, investment aid

C 340 E/200

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

(2001/C 340 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1232/01

by Carlos Candal (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Restructuring the Directorate-General for Fisheries

The author of this question would like the Commission to provide information about plans to restructure
the Directorate-General for Fisheries.

This restructuring is presumably motivated chiefly by the need to make the Commission(cid:146)s services more
efficient by rationalisation and also to preserve the internal balance in the distribution of responsibilities
between senior officials from the various Member States, and notably from those with stronger traditions
in the relevant sectors of activity. Will the Commission say whether all these considerations are being
taken into account in the restructuring of the Directorate-General in question?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2001)

The reorganisation of the Directorate-General for Fisheries has aimed indeed to further improve the
functioning of the Commission. The balance in the distribution of responsibilities between senior officials
reflects their competence in the various fields of the Common Fisheries Policy.

The interests of all Member States,
including those with stronger traditions in the relevant sectors of
activity, are safeguarded, as in the past, at all times by the Commission acting in accordance with the
Treaties.

(2001/C 340 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1233/01

by Ky(cid:246)sti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Investment aid to farmers(cid:146) joint undertakings

(10 April 2001)

In Finland,
Farmers are entitled to receive investment aid to help them purchase shared machinery.
however, subsidy applications have been turned down from farmers(cid:146)
joint undertakings having legal
personality, such as limited companies, partnerships, cooperatives and associations. On the other hand,
investment aid can be granted to machinery consortia in which each farmer participating in an application
for machinery is required to make his own individual application. This leads to serious difficulties in
obtaining machinery, arranging loans, bookkeeping, machine maintenance and repair, etc. It would be
more flexible and logical for farmers in many respects if they could form their own legal entities of which
they were the sole members and which could apply for machinery, manage it and keep the accounts
relating to it.

In the light of the above:

(cid:129) Is the Finnish authorities(cid:146) interpretation of EU legislation correct?

(cid:129) What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that farmers(cid:146) cooperation for the
purchase of machinery can be made more flexible and effective while at the same time reducing
bureaucracy?

(cid:129) What legislative measures does the Commission propose to take to remedy the situation?

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/201

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Finland notified in autumn 2000 the Decision of Council of State on rural development (Aid No N 97/00,
N 160/00 and N 264/00). This legislation, that refers both to co-financed investments and nationally
funded investments was approved by the Commission the 9 October 2000.

According to the explanation provided from the Finnish authorities on the notified legislation,
the
investments in machinery are funded purely from national funds. Furthermore the Finnish authorities have
decided that investments in machinery made by machinery chains or other farmers(cid:146) associations are not
eligible if the associations in question do not practice farming. This decision is the responsibility of the
Finnish authorities and the financing of the acquisition of machinery is only made through national funds.
The Commission cannot comment on this.

(2001/C 340 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1237/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Whaling on the Faeroe Islands (Denmark)

For some time now the Faeroe Islands(cid:146) bloody tradition of hunting pilot whales has been the object of
widespread public indignation.

That being so, I should like to ask the Commission the following questions:

1. Under S. 1 of the German Animal Protection Act, for example, it is illegal to do harm to an animal
without a valid reason. The Faeroe Islanders(cid:146) whale hunts subject whole schools of long-finned pilot
whales to a bestial fight to the death. Even pregnant females and new-born calves are killed. How can
this be reconciled with the European concept of animal protection?

2.

3.

Is it true that, when the slaughter of whole families of pilot whales is mentioned, Denmark refers to
the Faeroe Islands(cid:146) autonomy in internal matters (cultural affairs), but that these North Atlantic Islands
receive funding support to the tune of some € 140 million per year?

Public opinion polls show that the Danish population is opposed to the killing of whales on the
Faeroe Islands. International health organisations have also warned against the consumption of pilot
whale meat, which is contaminated with heavy metals. How can it be that all these facts are being
ignored?

4.

Is it true that a large proportion of the meat from these whales is not eaten but ends up on rubbish
tips?

5. What reasons did Denmark have for being the only EU country at the last IWC conference to vote
against the establishment of a whale protection zone between Australia and New Zealand, thus giving
support to Norway and Japan, which are in favour of whaling?

6.

Former whaling countries in the EU, such as Portugal, Spain and the UK, have long abandoned their
whaling traditions and not suffered any cultural loss as a result. Does the Commission agree that the
Faeroe Islands should do likewise?