WRITTEN QUESTION P-1491/02 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Execution of the RURIS (rural development) programme in Portugal.
Date: 2002-05-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF, EU financing arrangements, Portugal, financial management, rural development, terms for aid

C 301 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Initial reply of 21 June 2001 to written question E-1253/01 (2), the Commission deemed it premature to
pass judgement on the adequacy of Spain’s proposals on the protection of posidonia beds.

In the light of the fact referred to above, and the EU’s recent reaffirmation of its commitment to
conserving protected habitats, both by its participation in the Biodiversity Convention meetings in the
Hague, and its adoption of the Recommendation on the integrated management of coastal areas:

(cid:1) What specific measures does the Commission intend to propose to arrest the deterioration and

shrinkage of posidonia beds, particularly along the Mediterranean coast?

(cid:1) Does the Commission believe that the SCIs areas marked out by Spain for the conservation of this
important habitat are adequate? What is the Commission’s opinion of the listing suggested by the
WWF in its report on the Mediterranean coastline with regard to the areas not included as SCIs by the
Spanish Government? Does the Commission intend to approach the Spanish authorities to plead the
case for including these areas?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 205.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

The Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae) to which the Honourable Member refers are a natural habitat in
danger of disappearance, and the Community has special responsibility for their conservation.

The Commission believes that measures taken by the Member States to protect this habitat might not be
sufficient, in view of its state of conservation and the number of serious threats endangering it.

The Commission will therefore pay particular attention to ensuring that a sufficient number of sites
hosting this habitat are included in the Natura 2000 network.

Moreover, the Commission believes that protection measures should be introduced now, before final
adoption of the list of Special Areas of Conservation. More particularly, given the pressures on this habitat,
the Commission attaches great importance to the implementation of the provisions of Article 6 of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Unfortunately, the Commission is not in a position to comment on the adequacy of Spain’s proposals or
the existence of other possible sites, as the Member States are still transmitting information on sites to be
considered for protection in the Mediterranean, and the biogeographical seminar at which they were due
to be discussed has been postponed.

The Commission has always believed that the success of nature conservation policies depends largely on
the participation of all sectors of society concerned. The report mentioned by the Honourable Member,
which the Commission has already received, shows once again that independent contributors have an
important role to play in identifying problems and helping to target nature protection initiatives.

(2002/C 301 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1491/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Execution of the RURIS (rural development) programme in Portugal

According to a report published in a Portuguese daily newspaper the Commission is to impose a ‘fine’ of
around EUR 4,6 million on Portugal because of
the RURIS (Rural
Development) programme in 2001, which did not reach the minimum of 75 % required under Regulation

the low level of execution of

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/161

(EC) No 1750/1999 (1). According to the same source, execution was around 70 %. It would appear that
Portugal committed about EUR 197 million of the 207 million earmarked for 2001 in the 3rd Community
Support Framework, equivalent to execution of 95 %. The Commission apparently based its calculations on
Portugal’s request for EUR 281 million for 2001, with a view to including the EUR 70 million unused in
2000. All this leads one to believe that there is a connection between the low level of execution of the
rural development programme and the delay in the Commission’s submission of the original proposals.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

(cid:1) what information it has regarding this and other similar situations in the use of the appropriations

under the 3rd Community Support Framework;

(cid:1) what solutions it envisages to remedy this situation?

(1) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2002)

By a decision of 22 November 2000 (1) the Commission approved the rural development programme for
Mainland Portugal (RURIS) for 2000-2006 transmitted by the Portuguese authorities in January 2000.
Part-financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, it has
four
(compensatory allowances), agri-environment,
strands: early retirement,
afforestation of agricultural land.

favoured areas

less

All other rural development measures in Portugal, as in all Objective 1 regions, are part-financed by the
EAGGF Guidance Section and included in multi-fund programmes falling within the 3rd Community
support framework. The financial rules for the two EAGGF Sections are very different.

The execution rate of 95 % for 2001 refers to total expenditure by Portugal on the three rural development
plans part-financed by EAGGF Guarantee: Mainland, Azores, Madeira. But
the expenditure forecasts
presented for that year had been higher and this explains the EUR 4,58 million reduction in the overall
amount for Portugal for 2002, in line with Article 39(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of
23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on
support for rural development from the EAGGF (2) (replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002
of 26 February 2002 (3)).

Article 39(3), which has been applied to other Member States, states that where expenditure actually
incurred by a Member State in a given financial year is less than 75 % of the amounts notified to the
Commission under Article 37 of the Regulation the expenditure to be recognised for the next financial year
is to be reduced by a third of the difference between that threshold and the actual expenditure incurred
during the given year.

The penalty is an outcome of the disparity between forecast and actual expenditure and not of the
execution rate by comparison with the financial plan.

To avoid recurrence of the situation the Commission advises Member States to present expenditure
estimates that are as accurate as possible. This also helps towards optimum financial resource utilisation.

(1) C(2000)3368.
(2) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.
(3) OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.