WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/02 by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Commissioner Fischler's remark on direct payments to large holdings.
Date: 2002-08-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, aid to agriculture, area of holding, common agricultural policy, farm accountancy data network, farm income

C 52 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Is the Commission aware of the arrest? What measures does it intend to take to make clear to the Tunisian
authorities that such practices are absolutely incompatible with Article 2 of the EU-Tunisia Association
Agreement (‘human rights clause’)? More generally, does not the Commission believe that President Ben
Ali’s dictatorship has now become intolerable?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission quickly learned of Mrs Hamrouni’s arrest through press releases published by her
husband and human rights organisations in Tunisia.

It also has documents from the Tunisian authorities emphasising that Mrs Hamrouni was released straight
after questioning.

The Commission regularly points out to the Tunisian authorities the importance it attaches to freedom of
speech and political pluralism, both as values in their own right and as basic parameters for the
development of a modern society.

At the meeting of the EC-Tunisia Association Committee in Tunis on 25 September we will once again
reiterate our attachment to the democratic principles to which Tunisia subscribed when it signed the
Association Agreement with the Community.

(2003/C 52 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/02

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 August 2002)

Subject: Commissioner Fischler’s remark on direct payments to large holdings

In Commission press release IP/02/1125 of 23 July 2002, ‘Franz Fischler in Berlin:’
‘Farm policy cannot
turn a blind eye to society’s expectations’, Commissioner Fischler is quoted as saying, on the proposed
upper limit on direct payments, that it is not fair for 80 % of the money to go to 20 % of the largest
holdings.

This remark has given the public the impression, as can be verified by reports in the media, that the ‘20 %
of the largest holdings’ means holdings with a farmed area of 1000 or more hectares (especially as the
proposed capping ceiling would affect a large proportion of such holdings) and that it is these holdings
that receive 80 % of direct payments. But this is manifestly incorrect.

At farmers’ meetings I have attended, justifying the proposal on ceilings in this way (irrespective of how its
substance is assessed) was felt to be politically unfair. It would therefore be advisable either to provide hard
evidence to back up this, in my view misleading, remark or to rectify it.

Therefore the following questions:

1. What concrete statistical evidence is there to back up the remark concerning direct payments that
80 % of the money goes to 20 % of the largest holdings (for the EU as a whole and for individual
Member States)?

2. What specific business and/or statistical criteria does the Commission use for defining ‘large holdings’,

and what are the key figures for the ‘20 % of the largest holdings’ subcategory?

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/171

3. What proportion of all agricultural holdings, of all farmed land and of all direct payments do (a) ‘large
holdings’ and (b) ‘20 % of the largest holdings’ account for (in the EU and broken down by Member
State)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

The statement that around 80 % of direct payments go to 20 % of the farms has been made on the basis of
estimates from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN).

The FADN is a source of harmonised micro-economic data that is collected on the basis of an annual
survey of a representative sample of holdings. The survey does not cover all the agricultural holdings in
the Union but only those which due to their size could be considered commercial by the Member State
concerned. Due to statistical uncertainty such estimates should only be taken as a broad indication of the
distribution of payments at a Community level.

As the Honourable Member suggests, it would be incorrect to suggest that holdings with a farm area of
1000 or more hectares account for 80 % of direct payments. However, the farms which receive the largest
amount of payments tend also to be farms with the largest farmed area, particularly in the arable crops
and beef sectors. The Commission has no specific criteria for defining large holdings.

The absolute level of payments received by a single farm is an issue of the social acceptability of direct
payments. In the current system single landowners or farms can receive large sums of public support.
Capping is not meant to work against large scale farming, but intends to set a certain limit to public
support going to a single farm. Furthermore, in the Commission’s view, the use of payments above the
capping level for rural development measures would be a more efficient use of public resources in the
regions concerned.

More accurate information on the distribution of payments is available within Commission payment
databases. Subject to confidentiality requirements and technical feasibility, more detailed information will
be shortly made available to the Parliament.

(2003/C 52 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: Petition signed by 21 distinguished Vietnamese dissidents seeking radical legal reforms

The Paris-based ‘Vietnam pour les Droits de l’Homme’ (‘Vietnam for Human Rights’) Committee announced
that, on 2 August 2002, 21 distinguished dissidents, former senior cadres in the Vietnamese Communist
Party (PCV), veterans and scholars, and most of them committed to the Party, had forwarded a petition to
the National Assembly and to the country’s leaders. In their petition, they sought radical legal reforms so
as to ensure genuine protection of human rights. In particular, the petition called upon the recently elected
National Assembly to establish a Constitutional Court which would strike down any unconstitutional
legislation and ensure that national
legislation complied with the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. It also called for the establishment of an independent anti-corruption association, for
publication of the controversial treaties which establish the frontiers between China and Vietnam and for
the introduction of legal safeguards in order to curb the repressive measures taken by the State against
citizens who legitimately oppose its actions.

Is the Commission aware of this petition? What measures will the Commission take, on the basis of
Article 2 of the Cooperation Agreement,
to ensure that the Vietnamese authorities stop persecuting
Vietnamese citizens because of their opinions or because of their peaceful political activities?