WRITTEN QUESTION E-1919/01 by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Funding for hazelnut producers' organisations.
Date: 2001-06-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Piedmont, nut, producer organisation, production improvement

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/75

Does the Commission consider it necessary to review its intentions so as to allow continuation of the
status quo as regards EU aid to the tobacco sector, thus avoiding unfair discrimination against tobacco
producers vis-(cid:224)-vis other agricultural producers at EU level?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

On 15 May 2001 the Commission adopted the Communication on a European Union Strategy for
Sustainable Development (1) to be presented to the Gothenburg European Council on 15 and 16 June
2001.

This document proposes, as part of a series of measures to address public health issues, phasing out
subsidies for raw tobacco following on from the evaluation of the common market organisation for
tobacco, which is due to be completed in 2002.

The justification for phasing out this aid is the impact the use of tobacco products has on human health
with tobacco use being held responsible for over 500 000 deaths annually in the Community. Subsidies for
tobacco-growing are not in accordance therefore with Article 152 (formerly Article 129) of the EC treaty
which stipulates that (cid:145)a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and
implementation of all Community policies and activities(cid:146).

The Commission Communication states, however, that the phasing out of tobacco subsidies can only take
place if measures are put in place to develop alternative sources of income and economic activity for
tobacco workers and growers.

The Commission will take steps to ensure that the economic and social fabric of rural tobacco-growing
areas remains vigorous.

(1) COM(2001) 264 final.

(2002/C 81 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1919/01

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Funding for hazelnut producers(cid:146) organisations

(28 June 2001)

The hazelnut market in the Piedmont region is in extremely healthy condition. The producers have formed
themselves into two organisations (Asprocor and Ascopiemonte) and concluded advantageous commercial
agreements with the processing and confectionery industries.

Under appropriate operational plans, these organisations assist member producers in the marketing of
hazelnuts, to great effect.

However, this success story has so far been clouded by obvious disparities in the conditions applying to
members of the two organisations.

The Asprocor organisation, which is recognised under Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (1), has an
improvement plan (Regulation (EEC) No 2159/89 (2)) covering some 100 members, and can now extend
that plan to cover all its members and pay each member of the organisation approximately EUR 200 per
annum for a further six to seven years.

However, the funding for which the Ascopiemonte organisation (recognised under Regulation (EC) No
2200/96 (3))
is eligible is limited by business turnover and the provisions of the regulation itself. In
particular, Ascopiemonte is not eligible for the funding available under the improvement plan provided for
in Regulation (EEC) No 2159/89.

C 81 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Will the Commission look into this complex problem and find an appropriate way of ensuring that the
subsidies available to one organisation are also made available to the other, not least with a view to
preventing large numbers of members from leaving and thus undermining the commercial progress made
to date?

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 207, 19.7.1989, p. 19.
(3) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission takes note of the positive developments in the Piedmont region regarding regrouping of
supply into two producer organisations.

Support through operational funds is available to both organisations under Regulation (EC) No 2200/96,
and the possibility also exists of funding under rural development programmes.

The specific measures for nuts and locust beans under Regulation (EEC) No 2159/89 were introduced in
1989 as a temporary measure to improve marketing and production, over a 10-year period. The measure
was repealed by Regulation (EC) No 2200/96. However existing plans are allowed to continue to term.
Existing plans may also be extended once in their 10-year life, through the incorporation of new members
and surface areas.

Access to the improvement plan scheme under Regulation (EEC) No 2159/89 was open for a seven year
period from 1989 until 21 November 1996, which is the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No
2200/96. During this period all producer organisations were entitled to submit an improvement plan.
However since Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 does not provide for new improvement plans to be
authorised, Ascopiemonte would not be eligible to start a new improvement plan.

In order to benefit from the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2159/89, producers of Ascopiemonte
would have to join another producer organisation which was extending its improvement plan.

Alternatively the two organisations could also consider merging outside the scope of the improvement
plan. While this would not entitle the hazelnut producers of Ascopiemonte to participate in the
improvement plan of Asprocor, the merger could be advantageous, particularly in terms of economies of
scale. Community funds are available to cover the administrative and legal costs of such a merger through
the operational funds.

(2002/C 81 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/01

by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Appointment of middle managers

(29 June 2001)

The post of head of unit responsible for legal affairs in the Commission(cid:146)s Taxation and Customs Union DG
has been vacant for nine months. An official has been doing the job in a temporary capacity for the whole
of that time. The vacancy has been advertised, and, at the end of the selection procedure, three candidates
were short-listed.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:129) why the acting head of unit was not short-listed although he has been performing the duties to the

satisfaction of the Director-General;

(cid:129) why no candidate was selected from the short list once the selection procedure had been completed;