WRITTEN QUESTION E-2229/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council. CAP reform and enlargement.
Date: 2002-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, Member States' contribution, common agricultural policy, enlargement of the Union, reform of the CAP

C 92 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The majority of EU fish meal production derives from the reduction of whole fish most of which comes
from industrial fisheries, a significant proportion also comes from trimming based fish meal factories
where the raw material is a by-product of fish processing (circa 30 % in recent years). The reduction from
industrial landings takes place in relatively few facilities throughout the Community.

The share of turnover by Member States in industrial fisheries has recently been given (STOA 101/2001)
as Denmark 47 %, Sweden 11 %, United Kingdom 9 %, Spain 7 %, the Netherlands 7 %, Ireland 5 %, France
4 %, Finland 3 %, Portugal 3 % and other Member States 4 %. The same source presents economic data for
this sector, with total landings at 2,970,000 tonnes, turnover at EUR 211 million and jobs at 4920.

Denmark is the main producer and an information paper ‘Facts on the Industrial Fisheries’ was presented
to the Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea in February 2002 (CONSSO FEB
02/2/Info-1). Comparable data is not readily available for other Member States. The Danish fleet involved
fully or partly in industrial fishery comprises more than 300 vessels and provides around 1,000 jobs at
sea.

Industry sources indicate that 175 000 tonnes of European fish meal (European Economic Area) was used
in farmed fish production in 2001 compared with 520 000 tonnes in terrestrial animal nutrition (non-
ruminants).

(2003/C 92 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2203/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(22 July 2002)

Subject: Freedom of expression and the Internet

Following the publication on 25 October 2000 of a report in the ‘Osservatore Romano’ (cid:1) the daily
newspaper of the Roman Curia (cid:1) of an article on ‘blasphemous’ websites, the Italian financial police, after
about two years’ investigations, has ordered the shutdown of five US-based Internet sites.

Does not the Council consider that these provisions are contrary to freedom of expression, as guaranteed
by the international instruments concerning human rights, in particular Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on
European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights? If so, what steps does it intend to take?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

Article 33 of the Treaty of European Union does not allow the Council to intervene in the maintenance of
public order and security in the Member States.

(2003/C 92 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2229/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 July 2002)

Subject: CAP reform and enlargement

Unlike the Structural Funds, which are directly linked to per capita income levels and which may,
therefore, be seen as examples of European solidarity, the CAP is not calculated on the basis of per capita
GDP and has always contained significant budgetary distortions aside from its many other deficiencies.

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/145

The German Government is believed to have calculated recently that each French man, woman and child
receives EUR 40 a year from the EU’s agricultural kitty, while each German contributes EUR 53 a year.
British, Dutch, Austrian and Swedish taxpayers also ensure that
respective countries pay a
disproportionate share of Community funds, with over 50 % of Community expenditure accounted for
by the CAP. Does the Council believe that the budgetary distortions generated by the CAP are a necessary
part of the ‘European ideal’ or historic anomalies deserving of urgent reform? If the latter, does the Council
believe that it is better for the existing Member States to agree to fundamental and serious reform of the
CAP before accession of the applicant countries takes place or to wait until 2006 and risk a showdown
which could generate considerable anti-European feeling in a number of Member States,
including
Germany?

their

Various proposals for reform have been presented including, most recently, one from the Commission.
What is the Council’s response to those proposals? Does the Council accept that it is perfectly possible to
adjust budgetary distortions between individual Member States, whilst at the same time ensuring that long-
term support to farming and rural communities is maintained in a way that commands widespread public
support?

There are a variety of ways to approach reform, such as scaling-back on direct payments in favour of
broader-based subsidies, restructuring and co-financing. Has the Council also given thought to the idea of
an equalising budgetary rebate mechanism linked to per capita GDP and population which would ensure
that budgetary contributions would be financed on an equitable basis between all Member States?

Finally, if obstruction to reform on the part of any individual government were to have the effect of
holding up enlargement, and, in particular, the accession by the summer of 2004 of those countries which
have met the accession criteria, does the Council believe that the major net contributing states will
continue to fund the CAP or other Community expenditures after 2006 as though nothing had happened?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

Since its inception in 1962, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has pursued the objectives which are
currently set out, unchanged, in Article 33 of the EC Treaty. In pursuit of these objectives, the CAP was
established on three basic principles including financial solidarity. Over the course of several decades, the
CAP has been adapted to meet the challenges of successive enlargements, it has undergone a number of
reforms and it has been adjusted to ongoing policy developments in other areas, such as the completion of
the single market, and the inclusion in the Treaty of provisions on the environment and food safety. In
1999, the Berlin European Council confirmed the role of the reformed CAP among the Union’s major
policies and in its financial perspective until 2006.

To-day, the CAP faces numerous new challenges, including enlargement, as referred to by the Honourable
Member, but also internationally in the negotiations which follow from the WTO Doha Declaration, as
well as domestically in meeting society’s expectations regarding a fair income for farmers, protection of the
environment, appropriate standards of animal health and welfare, and a supply of safe and quality food
products for consumers.

In particular,
three exercises are being conducted simultaneously (cid:1) enlargement negotiations, WTO
negotiations and internal Mid-Term Review. Although these exercises are inter-related (cid:1) in the sense that
developments in one arena have implications in others (cid:1) they are not interdependent, in the sense that
any one is a precondition for the others.

In July 2002, the European Commission presented to the European Parliament, to the Council and to civil
is
society a Communication on the Mid-Term Review of the CAP. Like the Parliament, the Council
examining the issues in the Communication with the participation of the Commission. The Council’s work
has not yet reached a conclusion and,
in any event, no legislative changes can take place until the
Commission presents its legislative proposals later in the year. Specifically, the ‘equalising budgetary rebate
mechanism’ referred to by the Honourable Member does not feature among the options presented by the
Commission.

C 92 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Finally, the Union’s financial perspective beyond 2006, and other related issues including, if necessary, the
CAP, will be examined by the Council in due course on the basis of Commission proposals.

(2003/C 92 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2238/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Killings in the DRC

A series of unlawful killings took place in mid-May 2002 in Kisangani, north-east Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC). It is estimated that 1 200 people died in this massacre, which was condemned by the UN
Security Council. However, no measures have been taken to put pressure on this state to bring the
perpetrators to justice. The crimes, which included summary executions of civilians, rape and pillaging, are
reported to have been carried out by members of the Rwandese Patriotic Army and combatants loyal to
the Goma-based faction of the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD-Goma). According to human rights
organisations such as Amnesty International, the same groups carried out similar massacres in June 2000.

What is the Council’s position on these arbitrary killings and horrendous abuses of international human
rights law, and what measures, if any, have been taken by the Council to ensure that the perpetrators of
these massacres are brought to justice? Is the Council taking measures to prevent such massacres in the
future?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

Concerning the events that took place in Kisangani in mid-May 2002, the EU, in a declaration published
on 23 May, has denounced the resurgence of violence in the areas occupied by the RCD-Goma, notably in
Kisangani and the repression of the Congolese people by RCD-Goma members and Rwandan troops. The
EU also recalled the obligations stemming from the successive UN Security Council resolutions on the
demilitarisation of Kisangani.

The EU is, however, of the opinion that this kind of events can only be prevented on a permanent basis
through the realisation of peace in the region of the Great Lakes. The EU has over the years worked
towards that goal in many different ways, by giving financial assistance to the ongoing peace initiatives
and through its Special Representative Aldo Ajello. The progress made in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue
between the government of DRC, the different armed opposition groups, the unarmed opposition and
other groups as well as the recent peace agreement concluded between the DRC and Rwanda have kindled
a new hope that peace in the region might be within reach.

(2003/C 92 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2243/02

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Security situation in the Moluccas

The fragile peace brought about by the Malino Agreement is under threat from violent Islamic militants.

Will the Council indicate the nature of any representations made to President Megawati Sukarnoputri
regarding action taken to secure the arrest and trail of Jafer Umar Thalib and the effective enforcement of
the Malino Agreement.