WRITTEN QUESTION E-2580/01 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission. Environmentally harmful subsidies, with particular reference to the Rio+10 Conference and agriculture and fisheries.
Date: 2001-09-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, aid to agriculture, degradation of the environment, economic support, energy policy, environmental policy, fisheries policy, road transport, sustainable development

C 134 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

(2002/C 134 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2580/01

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 September 2001)

Subject: Environmentally harmful subsidies, with particular reference to the Rio+10 Conference and

agriculture and fisheries

1.
Environmentally harmful subsidies are those granted with a particular objective, often unrelated to
the environment, but which may have unintended negative side-effects on the natural and social
environment. In the framework of the EU’s preparations for the Rio+10 Conference in Johannesburg in
September 2002, questions about such subsidies arise in the fields of agriculture, energy, fisheries and road
transport. In a general way, is the Commission prepared to undertake the abolition of environmentally
harmful subsidies as part of the Rio+10 Sustainability Plan?

2.
It appears from a study by Van Beers and De Moor (Public Subsidies and Policy Failures. How
Subsidies Distort the Natural Environment, Equity and Trade, and how to reform them, Edward Elgar
Publishers, Cheltenham, UK, 2001) that in 1996 some 50 % of all agricultural subsidies in the EU took the
form of price subsidies. Price support in particular encourages farmers to work the land too intensively
with artificial fertilisers, pesticides, etc. in order to maximise their subsidy income. Is the Commission
convinced of the ineffectiveness of input and price support in the agricultural sector and of the additional
harmful environmental effects.?

3.
Does the Commission agree that the phasing out of subsidies which lead to economies of scale in the
fisheries sector results in the release of further resources which can be used to buy out fishermen, leading
to a reduction in the number of fishermen, and will the EU launch a study on the extent and harmful
effects of fisheries subsidies including their effects on international trade?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

The Commission in its Communication (1) ‘A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union
Strategy for Sustainable Development’ stressed the need to remove subsidies that encourage wasteful use of
natural resources as a means to get prices right and to influence the behaviour of individuals and
businesses.

In this Communication it was specifically proposed:

A To phase out subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption by 2010. Analysing, among other
things, whether or not a minimum level of subsidised production for security of supply reasons should
be maintained;

A To improve the agri-environmental measures in the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural
Policy, so that they provide a transparent system of direct payments for environmental services;

A To remove counterproductive subsidies which encourage over-fishing in the 2002 review of the

Common Fisheries Policy;

A To ensure, through a framework for transport charges to be proposed by the Commission in 2002,
that by 2005 prices for different modes of transport, including air, reflect their costs to society.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms undertaken as part of the Agenda 2000 provide a
powerful impetus for the integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policy together with a
considerable range of instruments to achieve sustainable agriculture. Among other things, Agenda 2000
embodies the development of a second pillar to the CAP covering structural, agri-environmental and rural
policy.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/53

The Agenda 2000 Reform of the CAP further moved away from price support and established a clear link
between direct support to producers and environmental protection requirements. CAP does not provide
any more for input subsidies. Member States are required to appropriate environmental measures in view
of the situation of the land used or production concerned and which reflect environmental effects. There
are a number of options to achieve this including through agri-environment, general mandatory
requirements and specific environmental requirements constituting a condition for direct payments. Thus
Member States are now in a position to ensure that direct support payments to producers do not lead to
environmental problems.
In the future it will be possible to examine the extent of Member States
commitment.

The Commission stated in its Communication ‘Elements for a Strategy for the Integration of Environmental
Protection Requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy’ (2) that ‘… it is possible now to distinguish
some types of subsidies clearly incompatible with a sustainable exploitation from those contributing to
positive conservation effects. In the short term, the’perverse‘subsidies should be removed and converted
progressively into funds to finance positive actions.’ Moreover, in its ‘Green Paper on the future of the
Common Fisheries Policy’ (3), the Commission has stated that ‘… it may be necessary for the Community
to consider whether and under what conditions investment aid for the fishing fleet might be phased out, in
order to eliminate its counter-productive effects on fishing capacity, and Community aid redirected to
focus exclusively on the further reduction of the fleet …’.

The Commission has actively participated in studies carried out by international organisations on the size
and effects of subsidies to fisheries on the environment and the sustainable use of fishery resources. One
good illustration in this regard is the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Committee for Fisheries’ study on ‘Transition to Responsible: Economic and Policy Implications’ (4).

(1) COM(2001) 264 final.
(2) COM(2001) 143 final.
(3) COM(2001) 135 final.
(4)

ISBN: 9264171606.

(2002/C 134 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: German Regulation on packaging A barrier to trade for importers of beverages

The present German Regulation on packaging provides for compulsory deposits on the packaging of
certain beverages, to take effect when the average figure for reuse falls below the 72 % ascertained in 1991.

Not until January 2001 did the Commission, after years of deliberation and preliminary procedures, decide
to bring an action against Germany before the Court of Justice relating to this reuse rate and the
threatened imposition of compulsory deposits. The measure constitutes a barrier to trade in all beverages
affected. The compulsory deposit is not even proportionate to the intention of protecting the environment.
The stated aim is to encourage reuse. The cost is huge, disproportionate and will finally be borne by the
consumer. As many studies have shown, the effect will be to undermine rather than promote the
attainment of this goal. Regardless of the reservations over the German Regulation which date back to
1991, the German Minister of the Environment intends to bring compulsory deposits into effect by
publishing the amount by which individual classes of beverage fall below the reuse quotas set in 1991
(milk 20 %, mineral water 91 %, beer 82 %, wine 28 %).