WRITTEN QUESTION E-2964/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Restructuring and conversion of vineyards.
Date: 2001-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: aid per hectare, aid system, distribution of aid, financial aid, redirection of production, vineyard

C 147 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(2002/C 147 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/01

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Belgian system for dealing with the free movement of labour

1.
Is the Council President aware of the problems EU citizens encounter with the Belgian administration
when registering their arrival to take up residence and in obtaining ID papers, and in particular the long
the
waiting times,
municipalities to which they have moved, and the issue of one temporary ID card after another before an
ID card proper is finally issued?

the need to send several reminders to obtain answers from the authorities of

Does the Council consider such a system to be appropriate for a country like Belgium, which is host

2.
to international organisations such as NATO and the European Union?

3. Will Belgium take steps to improve this system?

Reply

(1 March 2002)

The Council has no authority to reply to the Honourable Member’s questions.

(2002/C 147 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2964/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Restructuring and conversion of vineyards

On 21 August 2001, the Commission adopted Decision 2001/666/EC (1)
for the 2001/2002
marketing year and in respect of a certain number of hectares, an indicative allocation by Member State
for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards. The Commission has thus distributed the 422 million
euros earmarked for the second year of the implementation of this measure by the producer Member
States. Article 14(1) of EC Regulation No 1493/1999 (2) lays down that the allocation shall be based on
objective criteria and take account of particular situations and needs.

fixing,

Furthermore, Article 14(3) of that regulation claims that the vineyard area of each Member State will be
taken into account, while Article 13(3) states that the Community contribution will be larger for Objective
1 areas.

However,
despite their being ‘cohesion countries’.

in the proposed distribution, Portugal and Spain receive the smallest subsidies per hectare,

What then are the ‘objective criteria’ used by the Commission in distributing the aid to each Member State?

(1) OJ L 233, 31.8.2001, p. 53.
(2) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The Honourable Member points out that, under Commission Decision 2001/666/EC of 21 August 2001
fixing, for the 2001/2002 marketing year and in respect of a certain number of hectares, an indicative

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/69

allocation by Member State for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards under Council Regulation
(EC) No 1493/1999 (1), the average aid per hectare received by Portugal and Spain is lower than that for
the other Member States. Although it
the producing
Member States, it should be pointed out that this mathematical calculation by itself cannot be used to
compare the characteristics of the various forms of winegrowing existing in Europe.

is about 8 % lower than the average for all

The Community contribution is directly linked to the actual restructuring and conversion costs, which of
course vary greatly from one winegrowing area to another depending on vineyard type, vine training
method, density, slope, etc.
the financial allocation decided by the
Commission for the first marketing year when the rules applied (2000/2001) was made in consultation
with the Member States on the basis of estimates. All the allocation factors and criteria stipulated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (2) were taken
into account.

In the absence of precise data,

Those factors can be summarised as follows:

B proportion of the Community winegrowing area in the Member State concerned;

B estimated average restructuring costs in the various winegrowing areas;

B proportion of

the winegrowing area to be restructured located respectively within and outside

Objective 1 regions;

B proportion of the winegrowing area to be restructured which could receive aid for loss of income

during the period when the area is not yet in production.

The amounts thus allocated enabled many more hectares than forecast to be completed, which proves that
the average estimated aid is appropriate.

For the second marketing year (2001/2002), the Commission had at its disposal detailed statements from
the Member States describing specific needs based on the efforts to be made in each winegrowing area. A
new criterion B with a 20 % weighting B was added to the criteria used for the previous marketing year,
to take into account the applications submitted by Member States. In this connection it should be pointed
out that the applications (€ 612 million) exceeded budgetary resources (€ 422 million).

In subsequent marketing years the Member States, which are responsible for implementing restructuring
plans, will of course benefit from increased experience in applying the new rules. The Commission will
take into account any proposals which Member States may present to it based on that experience with the
aim of adjusting allocations according to actual needs in future marketing years.

(1) OJ L 233, 31.8.2001.
(2) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(2002/C 147 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/01

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Structural Funds: Objective 2 regions in Belgium 1994-1999

In the 1994-1999 programming period, the Verviers-Liège region was recognised as an Objective 2 region
eligible for aid.

During that period, which projects (please give a detailed list of the individual projects) were

1.
approved and carried out within the relevant deadlines?

2. Which projects encountered problems with regard to the criteria laid down in the SPD and to the
committed expenditure?