State aid — United Kingdom — Aid C 62/2002 (ex N 221/2002) — Ad-hoc aid to ClydeBoyd under the freight facilities grant scheme (FFG) — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, freight rate, maritime transport, transit, transport infrastructure

5.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 269/3

STATE AID — UNITED KINGDOM

Aid C 62/2002 (ex N 221/2002) — Ad-hoc aid to ClydeBoyd under the freight facilities grant
scheme (FFG)

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2002/C 269/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 2 October 2002, reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following
this summary, the Commission notified United Kingdom of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down
in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid.

Interested parties may submit their comments within one month of the date of publication of this
summary and the following letter, to:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport
Directorate A
B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32-2) 296 41 04.

These comments will be communicated to United Kingdom. Confidential treatment of the identity of the
interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

Procedure

By letter of 14 March 2002, the United Kingdom Government
notified to the Commission an ad-hoc aid to ClydeBoyd (Fort
William) Ltd in accordance with the extended FFG scheme,
which was approved by the Commission on 20 December
registered by the Secretariat
2001. The notification was
General of
the European Commission on 15 March 2002
under No N 221/2002. The notification was considered
incomplete and on 26 April 2002, the United Kingdom auth-
orities were asked to provide additional
information. The
Commission received the requested information on 28 May
2002, registered under DG TREN A/59418. The Commission
sent a second request of information on 1 July 2002. The reply
was received by letter registered on 17 July 2002.

Description of the aid measure

In line with the aims of FFG scheme to secure a modal shift
from road to water transport, ClydeBoyd (Fort William) Ltd
wishes to provide a larger berth and freight handling facilities
at Corpach Pier, near Fort William, Scotland. ClydeBoyd (Fort
William) Ltd is a limited company. Its shareholders are Boyd
Brothers Ltd (road haulage company) and Clydeport plc (port
operator), who own 50 % each. Clydeport plc also owns and
operates several ports on the Clyde estuary and the Firth of
Clyde, i.e. Hunterston, Ardrossan, Greenock and Glasgow.

The existing facility has severe limitations due to the size of the
pier (31 m) and the lack of adjacent storage and handling
facilities. ClydeBoyd believe that any further loss of existing
volumes will render the current facility uneconomic and lead
to closure. In such circumstances ClydeBoyd would be forced
to close the facility and around 40 000 tonnes per annum of
timber, pulp and wood chip would revert to road transpor-
tation. The work to be carried out with grant assistance would
not only safeguard this existing traffic but also make it possible
to secure an additional 50 000 tonnes per year.

Financial analysis of the case in accordance with the rules of
the scheme by the UK authorities has determined that aid is
required at the level of 85 % (GBP 3,332 million) of the
eligible costs at Corpach (GBP 3,92 million), while the
environmental benefits calculated by the UK competent auth-
orities in line with the rules of
the scheme are GBP 5,4
million.

In accordance with the Commission approval of the extended
UK FFG scheme, which states that the aid intensity should not
be higher than 50 % of the total project costs, ClydeBoyd has
been offered a 50 % grant of GBP 1,96 million. They have
level of grant
declined to undertake the project at
because it does not cover the additional cost
they would
incur in securing a modal shift from road to water.

this

C 269/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.11.2002

Assessment of the aid

Under the proposed measure, ClydeBoyd (Fort William) Ltd will
receive a commercial advantage from State resources and the
measure is therefore selective in nature. A possible distortion of
competition cannot be excluded in relation to other modes of
transport or
services.
Therefore, a possible effect on intra-Community trade cannot
be excluded.

coastal/short-sea

shipping

existing

In view of the above, the Commission finds that the notified
project involves aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) and is
in principle, prohibited unless it may be deemed
hence,
compatible with the common market by virtue of any of the
exemptions provided for in the Treaty or secondary legislation.

The Commission considers that none of the exemptions of
Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty apply to the notified aid. In
addition,
the State aid under question is not destined to
promote the execution of an important project of common
European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the
economy of a Member State in the meaning of Article 87(3)(b),
nor to promote culture and heritage conservation in the
meaning of Article 87(3)(d). Furthermore, Article 80 of the
the
EC Treaty excludes the application of Article 73 of
Treaty to the maritime sector. However, the development of
activities shifting traffic from road to other modes is in the
common interest within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the
Treaty (1).

The creation of a timber product hub at Corpach appears to be
appropriate given the location of a number of forest product
industries immediately adjacent to the site.

the aid,

infrastructure

the Commission
Regarding the proportionality of
normally considers State aid beyond 50 % aid intensity for
transport
compatible with the EC
Treaty, unless a detailed and neutral commercial and financial
analysis shows that the main beneficiary of the facilities is not
capable of
financing a higher amount without State inter-
vention (2).

as not

is necessary

the Commission at
the proposed aid

this stage has doubts as to
Therefore,
and
intensity
whether
proportional for the realisation of the project.
In particular
the Commission has doubts that the aid offered is the least
necessary to realise such port facilities and that the relevant
market would not have provided a cheaper offer. It also has
doubts as to whether the proposed aid is necessary to enable
the improvement of the Corpach port and also as to whether it
could involve a distortive effect on competition contrary to the
common interest.

TEXT OF THE LETTER

‘The Commission wishes to inform the UK authorities that,
having examined the information supplied by your authorities
on the measure mentioned above, it has decided to initiate the
procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty.

I. PROCEDURE

1. By letter of 14 March 2002,

the United Kingdom
Government notified to the Commission an ad-hoc aid
to ClydeBoyd (Fort William) Ltd in accordance with the
extended FFG scheme, which was approved by the
Commission on 20 December 2001. The notification
was registered by the Secretariat General of the European
Commission on 15 March 2002 under No N 221/2002.
The notification was considered incomplete and on 26
April 2002 the United Kingdom authorities were asked
to provide
information. The Commission
received the requested information on 28 May 2002,
registered under DG TREN A/59418. The Commission
sent a second request for information on 1 July 2002.
The reply was received by letter registered on 17 July
2002.

additional

It has to be noted that ClydeBoyd has declined a 50 % grant of
GBP 1,96 million to undertake the project.

(1) See Commission Decision of 8 July 1999, N 121/99 — Austria (OJ
C 245, 28.8.1999, p. 2); Commission Decision of 4 May 1999 —
Italy (OJ L 227, 28.8.1999, p. 12); Commission Decision of
9 December 1998, N 598/98 — The Netherlands (OJ C 29,
4.2.1999, p. 13); Commission Decision of 21 January 1997, C
2/97 — The Netherlands (OJ C 93, 22.3.1997, p. 11).

(2) Commission Decision of 31 January 2001, N 597/2000 — The
Netherlands — Régime de subventions des raccordements industriels
vois navegables; Commission Decision of 14
particuliers
September 2001, N 208/2000 — The Netherlands — SOIT;
Commission Decision of 15 November 2000, N 755/99 IT —
Bozen.

aux

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

II.1. Commission Decision

of

20 December

2001,

N 649/2001

2. The extended FFG scheme will grant aid to operators of
freight handling facilities for coastal/short-sea shipping.
Such facilities may include quays, moorings and loading/
unloading equipment and will be provided to all existing
and potential users under non-discriminatory terms. The
aid is intended to tip the balance in favour of short-sea
in
shipping and to financially support
expensive and specialised equipment required for sending
freight by water, which would not be needed if the goods
went by road. By contributing to the cost of such facilities,
grants will enable coastal/short-sea shipping to compete in
financial terms with road transport

investments

5.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 269/5

3. Grant intensity will be calculated by the UK competent
authorities for each individual scheme following the FFG
rules. The FFG scheme first assesses the environmental
into
benefit using a
the
account
agreed period of
and their
monetary value which is the environmental benefit to be
gained. This monetary environmental benefit, calculated by
the UK competent authorities using the FFG formula,
that can be
the maximum amount of grant
forms
offered by the UK Government to the applicants.

standard formula which takes
that will be saved over
individual

the lorry-miles
the

scheme

4. The Commission’s decision of 20 December 2001 stated
that the aid intensity would not be higher than 50 % of
the total project cost for facilities that will be accessible on
non-discriminatory terms for all existing and potential
operators. Where access to the infrastructure is limited
to one or more specific operators, the latter will need to
be chosen through a transparent, fair and non-discrimi-
if the
natory public tendering procedure. Exceptionally,
authorities
requested objectives
cannot be met
through the aid amounts as described
above, higher percentages may be granted after prior
notification and approval by the Commission.

can prove

that

the

5. On receipt of

the competent
the formal application,
authority (3) may decide to seek independent engineering
advice to examine the design and specification of
the
project. A visit to the site of the proposed facility, either
by the staff of the competent authority or by an appointed
consultant, will normally be necessary.

6. In addition, the United Kingdom authorities will carry out
a market analysis to assess any possible competitive impact
of the applicant project on existing infrastructures before
deciding to make an award under the FFG scheme.

7. In any case, a grant would not be paid if the project can
be commercially justified without a grant and/or would
proceed in any event without it.

8. Annual

reports provided by the beneficiaries
to the
competent authority and verified by public audit will
the operator has achieved the previously
establish if
agreed tonnage target for each project. If traffic does not
reach anticipated levels in the agreed period, the Secretary
of State will examine the circumstances
to establish
whether to extend the original time period in order to
obtain the full environmental benefit or to recover a
proportionate part of the grant.

II.2. The notified ad-hoc aid to ClydeBoyd (Fort William)

Ltd

from road to water

9. In line with the aim of the FFG scheme to secure a modal
shift
transport, ClydeBoyd (Fort
William) Ltd wishes to provide a larger berth and freight
handling facilities at Corpach Pier, near Fort William,
Scotland. ClydeBoyd (Fort William) Ltd is a limited
company.
Its shareholders are Boyd Brothers Ltd (road
haulage company) and Clydeport plc (port operator),
who own 50 % each. Clydeport plc also owns and
operates several ports on the Clyde estuary and the Firth

(3) The UK Department of Transport,

local government and the
regions, or the Scottish Executive in respect of FFG grants in
Scotland.

of Clyde,
Glasgow.

i.e. Hunterston, Ardrossan, Greenock and

render

10. The existing facility has severe limitations due to the size
of the pier (31 m) and the lack of adjacent storage and
handling facilities. ClydeBoyd believe that any further loss
of existing volumes will
facility
uneconomic and lead to closure. In such circumstances
ClydeBoyd would be forced to close the facility and
around 40 000 tonnes per annum of timber, pulp and
woodchip would revert to road transportation. The work
to be carried out with grant assistance would not only
safeguard this existing traffic but would make it possible
to secure the transport of additional 50 000 tonnes per
year.

current

the

11. In order to do this, the port must be enlarged to allow
vessels of up to 6 000 tonnes dwt to berth safely, and the
pier must be extended to accommodate two vessels at the
same time. A greater area is needed close by the quayside
for goods handling and placement during loading and
unloading, plus a covered area for short term storage of
vulnerable products. Finally, mobile
freight handling
equipment
is required to load and unload the larger
vessels quickly and efficiently.

12. In addition, this project will be also able to unlock the
potential for significant further volumes in the near future.
ClydeBoyd has identified a number of specific traffic flows
relevant
which they are actively pursuing with the
customers, and should be in position to finalise these
proposals shortly. Bear Scotland have indicated that the
salt
required to maintain the road network in the
vicinity of Corpach will be shipped by water and stored
at Corpach. Otherwise,
it will be transported to the
Corpach area by road from Inverness.

In accordance with the terms of

13. A grant would be awarded against an annual tonnage
commitment of 90 000 tonnes to be moved by water
for 10 years.
the
general FFG scheme, no aid is repayable if this tonnage
or a greater amount is achieved.
In the event that the
target is not achieved, or of failure by the recipient to
grant may be
conditions,
comply with grant
recovered or a further agreed period of water movement
may alternatively be agreed.

the

14. The local authority in granting the planning permission
has placed as a condition that the new enhanced facilities
shall be operated with no undue restriction on access and
with no discrimination against any potential user, subject
only
functional
normal
the proposed
arrangements. The whole of
the
terminal
parties.

is nevertheless within the ownership of

rates
the site of

commercial

and

to

15. Apart from the aid intensity, the proposal complies fully
approved FFG scheme

conditions of

the

with the
(N 649/2001).

16. The UK authorities will pay half the grant as investment
takes place and the remaining half in direct relation to
volumes actually achieved in the first two years of full
operation.

17. One full-time and six part-time jobs (equivalent to four
full-time jobs) would be maintained with this development.
It is expected that a further two part-time jobs will be
created if the traffic projections are fully realised.

C 269/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.11.2002

II.2.1. The Port of Corpach and its existing traffic

Infrastructure costs

18. The site was first developed during the 1940 s, when a
slipway was built by the Royal Navy. In 1964 a jetty was
built to the west of the site, which carried a pipeline for
the export of woodchip. This was however only used for
about five years and is now in a state of disrepair.

19. In 1995 Boyd Brothers started the import and export of
timber through the site, using barges. During 1997 and
1998 they gradually extended the pier to its present
dimensions and started to develop the present
trade,
utilising small ships generally 1 500 dwt or less. The
method of construction was however only temporary
and the existing pier, built in 1997,
is not suited for
continued and expanded use.

Volume of traffic through Corpach

Year

1999

2000

2001

Predicted

Of which is
new traffic

Berth structure

GBP 2,19 million

Construction and fitting of freight handling
facility

Mobile plant

GBP 0,64 million

GBP 1,02 million

Project management and legal fees

GBP 0,07 million

Total cost

Grant

Aid intensity

GBP 3,92 million

GBP 3,332 million

85 %

the
22. In accordance with the Commission approval of
extended UK FFG scheme, which states that
the aid
intensity should not be higher than 50 % of the total
project costs, ClydeBoyd has been offered a 50 % grant
of GBP 1,96 million. They have declined to undertake
the project at
this level of grant because it does not
cover the additional cost they would incur in securing
modal shift from road to water.

Timber

8 180 15 155 14 379 23 000

8 600

II.2.3. Legal basis

Woodchip

9 000 13 540 25 091 25 000

0

23. Transport Act 2000, Section 272.

Baled Pulp

4 000

3 000

6 000 30 000

24 000

600

4 170 13 622

8 000

0

III. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

4 608

1 362

2 455

III.1. Presence of aid

Salt

Other

Total

26 400 37 200 61 500 86 000

20. The additional

is

timber

internal UK traffic, which
otherwise would be moved by road. The baled pulp is
imported into the UK through a number of different
ports, but
through
Greenock (owned and operated by ClydeBoyd, one of
the partners in the Corpach project). The estimate of the
average of the annual tonnage handled by the various
ports is as follows:

is now being brought mainly

Greenock

Inverness

Montrose

Dundee

Aberdeen

Leith

12 000

3 000

2 500

2 500

2 000

2 000

Total

24 000

II.2.2. Type of aid

21. Non-reimbursable subsidy. Financial analysis of the case in
accordance with the provisions of the FFG scheme has
determined that aid is required at
the level of 85 %
(GBP 3,332 million) of
the eligible costs at Corpach
(GBP 3,92 million). The environmental benefits calculated
by the UK competent authority in line with the scheme
rules are GBP 5,4 million.

24. According to Article 87(1) EC Treaty, aid granted by a
Member State or through State resources in any form
to distort
whatsoever which distorts or
competition by favouring certain undertakings or
the
production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects
trade between Member States, be incompatible with the
common market.

threatens

25. State financing of infrastructure open to all potential users
in a non-discriminatory way and managed by the State
may not fall under Article 87(1) EC Treaty (4) provided,
in particular, that no advantage is conferred to an under-
taking in the sense of Article 87(1).

26. However,

if

the body managing the infrastructure is
carrying out an economic activity, public financing may
come within State aid scrutiny if all elements of Article
87(1) of the Treaty are met (5).

27. From the point of

existing or potential
view of
competitors any financial benefit provided to such under-
takings may, in principle, distort competition.

for

(4) See Commission Decision of 14 September 2000 in Case N
208/2000, Soit (NL). See also the Commission’s White Paper on
fair payment
infrastructure use: A phased approach to a
common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU,
COM(1998) 466 final of 22.7.1998, Chapter 5, paragraph 43
and the Commission’s communication COM(2001) 35 final of
13.2.2001, p. 11,
‘Reinforcing quality in sea ports: A key for
European transport’.

(5) The Court of First Instance in its Judgment in the case Aéroports de
Paris v Commission of the European Communities (Case T-128/98 of 12
December 2000) considered that the management and provision of
facilities may constitute an economic activity to which Article 87(1)
may apply.

5.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 269/7

28. Nevertheless,

if

the State support granted to an infra-
structure manager for the construction of transport infra-
structure represents the market price to achieve the desired
result, the financing may under certain circumstances not
be covered by Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

29. Under the proposed measure, ClydeBoyd (Fort William)
receive a commercial advantage from State
Ltd will
resources and the measure
in
nature. A possible distortion of competition cannot be
excluded in relation to other modes of
transport or
existing coastal/short-sea shipping services. Therefore, a
possible effect on intra-Community trade cannot be
excluded.

therefore

selective

is

30. In view of the above, the Commission finds that, at this
point
the notified
in time it cannot be excluded that
project involves aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)
and that it would hence, in principle, be prohibited unless
it may be deemed compatible with the common market by
virtue of any of the exemptions provided for in the Treaty
or secondary legislation.

III.2. Exemption of the aid measure

the

31. The Commission considers that none of the exemptions of
Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty apply to the notified aid. In
addition, the State aid under question is not destined to
execution of an important project of
promote
common European interest or
to remedy a serious
disturbance in the economy of a Member State in the
meaning of Article 87(3)(b), nor to promote culture and
heritage conservation in the meaning of Article 87(3)(d).
Furthermore, Article 80 of the EC Treaty excludes the
application of Article 73 of the Treaty to the maritime
sector as long as the Council has not decided otherwise,
which is not the case.

32. However, the development of activities shifting traffic from
road to other modes is in the common interest within the
meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty (6). According to
this Article aid may be deemed compatible with the
common market if it:

‘Facilitates the development of certain economic activities or of
certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect
trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’

33. The Commission finds that Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty is
the appropriate legal basis to analyse aid for investments
in the infrastructure for coastal/short-sea shipping and to
assess its compatibility with the common market.

34. It is thus necessary to verify if these requirements are

fulfilled in order to apply Article 87(3)(c).

transport

environmentally

is not expensive and does

35. The Community has for some time pursued a policy of
achieving a balanced intermodal transport system and a
policy of fostering the transfer of goods from road to
friendly modes (7). The
other more
Commission’s White Paper on transport policy (8) states
less
that water
damage to the environment than road transport.
Intra-
Community maritime transport is a key component of
intermodality which must provide a means of coping
It must be
with the growing congestion of
considered as a real competitive alternative to land
transport. Therefore, efforts must be made to harness the
for example installing
advantages of short-sea shipping,
transhipment
shipping
encouraging
routes between European ports to create networks.

equipment

roads.

and

priority

36. The Commission’s view is that in order to achieve an
the
intermodal and sustainable transport
infrastructure
be
future,
investments. In this respect the Commission takes note
of the fact that coastal/short-sea shipping transhipment
facilities
for
intermodal transport operations.

are, by its very nature, nodal points

system for
to

should

given

road. Under

37. Sending freight by water can require expensive and
specialised equipment which would not be needed if the
goods went by
certain circumstances
government contributions to the cost of such facilities
are indispensable to enable coastal/short-sea shipping to
compete
transport.
Moreover,
there were not public
sector co-financing of intermodal terminal infrastructures,
operators performing economic activities might not invest
in them, as their viability might not be ascertained without
State funding (9).

in
financial
in certain cases,

terms with
if

road

38. The creation of a timber product hub at Corpach appears
to be appropriate given the location of a number of forest
product industries immediately adjacent to the site.

39. Regarding the proportionality of the aid, the Commission
normally considers State aid beyond 50 % aid intensity for
transport infrastructure as not compatible with the EC
Treaty, unless a detailed and neutral commercial and
financial analysis shows that the main beneficiary of the
facilities is not capable of
financing a higher amount
without State intervention (10).

40. It has to be noted that ClydeBoyd has declined a 50 %
grant of GBP 1,96 million to undertake the project. Never-
theless, the UK authorities have not proved that no other
operator was willing to develop the project
(or an
equivalent one) with the mentioned State aid support.

(6) See Commission Decision of 8 July 1999, N 121/99 — Austria (OJ
C 245, 28.8.1999, p. 2); Commission Decision of 4 May 1999 —
Italy (OJ L 227, 28.8.1999, p. 12); Commission Decision of
9 December 1998, N 598/98 — The Netherlands (OJ C 29,
4.2.1999, p. 13). Commission Decision of 21 January 1997, C
2/97 — The Netherlands (OJ C 93, 22.3.1997, p. 11).

(7) See Commission Green Paper on fair and efficient pricing,
COM(1995) 691 of 20 December 1995; Commission White
Paper on fair payment for infrastructure use, COM(1998) 466 of
22 July 1998, and Council Resolution of 14 February 2000 on the
promotion of intermodality and intermodal freight transport in the
EU (OJ C 56, 29.2.2000).

(8) European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. COM(2001)

370.

(9) Commission Decision of 14 September 2000, Case N 208/2000
(NL), Soit, paragraph 32. See also High-level group on public-
private-partnership financing of trans-European transport network
projects, final report of May 1997, p. 25 et seq.

(10) Commission Decision of 31 January 2001, N 597/2000 — The
Netherlands — Régime de subventions des raccordements industriels
aux vois navegables; Commission Decision of 14
particuliers
September 2001, N 208/2000 — The Netherlands — Soit;
Commission Decision of 15 November 2000, N 755/1999 IT —
Bozen.

C 269/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.11.2002

41. At this stage of the procedure and after a preliminary
assessment, the information available does not allow the
Commission to determine whether a State contribution of
85 % (GBP 3,332 million) is absolutely necessary to allow
the improvement of the Port of Corpach.

such information as may help to assess the
provide all
measure, within one month of the date of receipt of this
letter. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this
letter
the aid immediately.
recipients of
Concretely:

to the potential

42. A non-proportional State aid support could have a
negative competitive impact on existing infrastructures
and competitive modes of transport. This risk is especially
important in this case considering that one of the two
shareholders of the beneficiary owns and operates several
other facilities in the area.

43. Therefore, the Commission has, at this stage doubts as to
whether the proposed aid intensity is necessary to enable
the Corpach port and also as to
the improvement of
whether it could involve a distortive effect on competition
contrary to the common interest.

IV. CONCLUSION

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission,
acting under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the
EC Treaty, request the UK to submit its comments and to

1. Detailed information is needed that aid to the intended port
facilities is necessary and proportional for the realisation of
the project. In particular information is needed which shows
that the aid offered is the least necessary to realise such port
facilities and that
the relevant market would not have
provided a cheaper offer.

2. Please provide information showing that

the subsidised
in a manner contrary
investment project does not affect,
to the common interest, existing transport infrastructures
in the area. Please provide a market analysis to this effect.

The Commission wishes to remind the UK that Article 88(3) of
the EC Treaty has suspensory effect, and would draw your
attention to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No
659/1999, which provides that all unlawful aid may be
recovered from the recipient.’

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2002/C 269/04)

Date of adoption of the decision: 4.10.2002

Member State:

Aid No:

Title:

Objective:

Legal basis:

Spain

N 547/02

Aid for the purchase of sheep, goat and cattle breeds

To promote native Spanish sheep, goat and cattle breeds and to
improve the gene pool of such livestock

Proyecto de Real Decreto por el que se modifica el Real Decreto
1734/2000 de 20 de octubre por el que se establecen ayudas para la
adquisición de animales de reposición de determinadas razas bovi-
nas, ovinas y caprinas autóctonas españolas

Budget:

For 2002, EUR 601 010

Aid intensity or amount:

Up to 40 % (50 % in less-favoured areas) of the investment costs

Duration:

Unspecified

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be
found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids