WRITTEN QUESTION E-1832/02 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Recreation horse riding.
Date: 2002-06-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural land, equidae, fallow, land use, leisure, set-aside

C 28 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

In his letter dated 25 May 2000 the Member of the Commission in charge of Agriculture and Fisheries
informed the Member States that the Commission will be formally notifying them when it is about to take
immediate action in the event of irregularities concerning the conditions of implementation of the Nitrates
Directive, especially concerning a failure to comply with the commitment to designate nitrate vulnerable
zones. Such appropriate actions may include recourse by the Commission to Article 7(4) of Council
Regulation No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy (1).

The letter from the Member of the Commission in charge of Environment dated 27 May 2002, referred to
in the written question, was addressed to Mr Bart Staes, Member of the Parliament, in reply to his letter on
the subject. It concerned the recent proposal for designation of nitrate vulnerable zones in Flanders. The
Member of the Commission’s letter refers to the commitment the Flemish region made in the context of its
rural development programme. It made no reference to the specific withdrawal of funds as suggested in
this question.

Designation of nitrate vulnerable zones in Flanders has been very limited (9 % of its territory) for several
years. On 25 June 2002 the Flemish authorities submitted formally to the Commission and through the
Permanent Representation of Belgium at
the Union, a new proposal. The Commission is currently
analysing this new proposal. As indicated above The Netherlands has established an action programme for
its entire territory. Therefore, despite of a number of similarities between Dutch and Flemish agriculture,
the approach applied for designation of nitrate vulnerable zones has been very distinct in Flanders as
compared to The Netherlands.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 28 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1832/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Recreation horse riding

Is the Commission aware of the regulations restricting recreational horse riding on fields set aside for the
Arable Area Payments Scheme?

Is it not possible for these fields to be used for the purposes of exercising horses in a recreational manner,
as opposed to using public roads, in areas where there are limited options?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Article 1(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/2002 of 21 February 2002 amending Regulation (EC)
No 2316/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999
establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (1) states that set-aside areas may not be
used for any agricultural production other than provided for in Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (2), nor
put to any agricultural or lucrative use which would be incompatible with growing an arable crop.
Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 allows the use of land set-aside for the provision of
materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not primarily intended for human or
animal consumption.

Set-aside was introduced as a market regulation instrument, mainly for cereals and plays an important role
in limiting production. Land used for recreational horse riding is frequently arable land eligible under the
arable crop regime. To allow set-aside land to be used for recreational horse riding, or similar purposes,

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/145

would entail the risk that producers would alter their normal cropping plans in order to make use of this
possibility. Were this so, then the effectiveness of the set aside regime would be weakened. Moreover it is
important that set-aside areas may not be put to any agricultural use, which is incompatible with growing
an arable crop.

However, a non-lucrative use for occasional access in a recreational manner can be admitted.

(1) OJ L 51, 22.2.2002.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 28 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1840/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Social and economic cohesion policy and the outermost regions in the post-2006 period

Madeira has received support from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the EIB and other existing
financial instruments, and this has enabled the island’s serious social and economic underdevelopment (by
comparison with most other European regions) to be gradually remedied. However, it will still take some
time for the island to be brought up to the average level of Community development, for which reason
Community aid continues to be essential.

Consequently, Madeira and the other outermost regions take an apprehensive view of the post-2006 social
and economic cohesion policy reform as described in the document entitled ‘Initial contribution from the
outermost regions to the future of social and economic cohesion policy’. The need to support the applicant
countries’ most disadvantaged regions, combined with the plan to maintain financial resources at their
current level, suggests that there will be inadequate resources to meet the needs of all the underdeveloped
regions.

Although the Commission (in its most recent report on cohesion policy) seems willing to take the specific,
legally enshrined status of the outermost regions into consideration in its policy review, the truth of the
matter is that those regions would appear to have been penalised right from the outset. If, in an important
area such as the Objective 1 eligibility criterion, the Commission carries through its stated intention
(namely, of retaining ‘per capita GDP lower than 75 % of the Community average’ as the criterion), the
current Objective 1 regions (which include the outermost regions) will quite artificially be made to appear
more wealthy by virtue of the accession to the European Union of a group of countries whose average
income is way below that of the 15 existing Member States. That will reduce the Community average and
may mean that, on account of a purely statistical ‘enrichment’, many of the regions in question will cease
to qualify for Objective 1 status.

In the case of Madeira and the other outermost regions, cutting investment in (in particular) basic
infrastructure (for which there is still a need) and in human resources would mean suddenly halting the
current social and economic development process, the basic purpose of which is to bring about sustainable
development and much yearned-for economic convergence with the rest of the Union.

in spite of

Consequently,
the ‘per capita GDP’ criterion as the most
appropriate indicator for the distribution of funding, should other ‘prosperity criteria’ not be used during
the coming planning period as a way of safeguarding the unique, specific situation of the outermost
regions and even of other regions which may also be affected by the statistical effects of enlargement?

the Commission’s defence of

The outermost regions will continue to need Community aid in the future, at least under the existing
arrangement (inclusion under Objective 1), which means that all the funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF Guidance
Section and FIFP) will be used to promote their development, in conjunction with, in particular, support
from the Cohesion Fund and other financial instruments. How does the Commission intend to safeguard
the specific, unique situation of the outermost regions within the financial framework during the post-
2006 period?