WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/02 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) and Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission. Structural Fund discrimination affecting the province of Teruel.
Date: 2002-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Aragon, EU regional policy, EU statistics, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, eligibility criteria, regional aid, regional development, regional disparity, statistical method

C 301 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

In accordance with Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support
for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and
amending and repealing certain Regulations (1), compensatory allowances are granted per hectare of
agricultural land to farmers in less-favoured areas under certain conditions, including usual good farming
practices compatible with the need to safeguard the environment and to maintain the countryside.

Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (2), which replaced Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 (3), Member States must set out verifiable standards for usual good
farming practices in their Rural Development Plans (RDP).

In keeping with these requirements, the authorities in the Autonomous Region of the Azores have had to
define an upper limit for stocking density in their RDPs compatible with good farming practices. They
have proposed and justified a maximum of 2,5 livestock units (LUs) per hectare (ha). This limit, much
greater than that employed during the previous planning period in the Azores (1,4 LUs per ha) for the
granting of compensatory payments, takes into account conservation requirements as well as the specific
regional characteristics inherent to the island’s status as an outermost region.

Furthermore, on 28 June 2001 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001, in accordance with
Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty,
introducing specific measures for certain agricultural products for the
Azores and Madeira and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (Poseima) (4). The Regulation acknow-
ledges and seeks to mitigate the effects of the particular geographical situation and the constraints imposed
by the island nature and outermost location of these two autonomous regions and, in particular, lays down
exceptional
structural measures. However, Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 does not provide for
derogations from Article 14(2) of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.
(3) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.
(4) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) and Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Structural Fund discrimination affecting the province of Teruel

(13 May 2002)

The EP report A3-0115/93 (drawn up by the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and
Relations with Regional and Local Authorities) of 30 March 1993 on areas with exceptionally low
population densities (rapporteur: Mr Moretti)) points out that demographic imbalance has a distorting
effect on the facts in statistical data, thereby invalidating the information units used to map out areas
receiving Structural Fund assistance. It expresses the view that the indicators used to determine areas
eligible for Structural Fund assistance, in particular per capita GDP, fail to reflect the complexity of the
problem of underdevelopment within the European Union and to determine the priorities of Community
regional policy. The report recommends the acquisition of data on units below NUTS III level in order to
define problems more precisely.

for an amended regulation (1), which lays down
Subsequently the Commission drew up a proposal
objective, clear, impartial and lasting criteria. Even so, the current categories NUTS 1, 2 and 3 do not
correspond to these objectives and the criteria laid down in the current proposal are frequently ignored, so

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/131

that the ultimate aim of providing truly comparable regional statistics is jeopardised. The proposal for a
regulation still allows the possibility of introducing levels lower than the current NUTS categories (4 and 5),
but they are unlikely to be useful for the purposes of recognising depressed regions.

In Spain the province of Teruel, which belongs to the Autonomous Region of Aragon, has two particular
characteristics (cid:1) it belongs to the most imbalanced region in Spain and has one of the highest rates of
depopulation. The continuing reduction in the population and its gradual ageing mean that although the
figures relating to wealth remain the same, the per capita GDP quotient is increasing. These factors mean
that the indicator does not reflect the province’s actual level of development, a problem pointed out in
paragraph 1 of the EP’s report.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of this distortion?

In the circumstances, will the Commission propose any reform on the subject aimed at drawing up new
criteria for choosing between developed and less developed areas with a view to 2006? Is there any
possibility that Teruel might be given special consideration (such as that given to island and outermost
regions), because of its low population density, in the run-up to 2006?

(1) COM(2001) 0083, OJ C 180 E, 26.6.2001, p. 108.

(2002/C 301 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1396/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Structural imbalances in Teruel province (Aragón, Spain)

(15 May 2002)

The European Parliament’s Moretti report (A3-0115/93) refers to the vulnerability of thinly-populated
areas and considers the need for a study to be made of other criteria (cid:1) such as population distribution or
the availability of basic services (cid:1) which should be taken into account when decisions are taken on
whether or not to grant a region Objective 1 status.

The report cites Teruel province as a textbook case, since it is in a paradoxical situation: its per capita GDP
is increasing at the expense of a shrinking population (during the nineteenth century it lost virtually 50 %
of its population, which fell from 265 000 to 136 000 inhabitants) and its percentage share of national
GDP is also declining. Its essential services (health care, education, energy supply and infrastructure) are
inadequate, and this accentuates its disadvantages (underdevelopment and lack of social and economic
cohesion) within the EU.

Has the Commission carried out any research into EU regions which may be affected by low population
density and which are not regarded as Objective 1 regions?

What immediate and long-term action is the Commission intending to take,
Spanish Government, in order to help redress the imbalances affecting Teruel province?

in association with the

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1349/02 and E-1396/02
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (1) sets eligibility criteria for areas to be covered by Objectives 1 and 2 of these Funds during the
2000-2006 programming period. Objective 1 areas must be regions of level II of the Nomenclature of
Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS) and Objective 2 areas must be NUTS level III regions or the most
seriously affected zones within such regions.