WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/03 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission. Nut production in Catalonia.
Date: 2003-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Catalonia, common organisation of markets, competitiveness, market support, marketing, nut, production aid, rural development, sustainable development, utilised agricultural area

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/167

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

The Commission holds no information regarding a ‘European vision panel’. Therefore,
position to provide an answer to the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

it is not in a

(2003/C 192 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Nut production in Catalonia

According to the 1999 agricultural census, 6,35 % of Catalonia’s utilised agricultural area (UAA) is used for
nut production. More specifically, in some areas such as Baix Camp and Terra Alta, over 40 % of the UAA
is used for nut production.

Nut production helps to maintain the environmental, rural and social equilibrium of many municipalities
in these areas, and these facets of nut production are viewed as key factors in the ongoing sustainable
development of rural areas.

The aid that
the European Commission has been providing since 1989 for quality and marketing
improvement plans has been efficacious in improving nut crops and quality. Despite this, competition
from hazelnuts produced in Turkey and almonds produced in the United States has meant that nuts
produced in the EU have been unable to establish a firm foothold on the market at prices which guarantee
producers sufficient income, and nut production in the EU remains chronically uncompetitive. The fact
that the European Commission is now to grant 40 % less aid to producers than was the case for the quality
and marketing improvement plans established in 1989 will further exacerbate the situation.

Lastly, it should be emphasised that the Commission working paper entitled ‘Analysis of the nut sector’ (1)
shows there to be an objective lack of alternatives to nut production owing to the situation on the markets
and CAP rules.

Is the Commission aware that its proposal to limit aid to EUR 100 per hectare will, even if this amount is
supplemented by optional aid granted by Spain, be totally insufficient to compensate producers for their
loss of income and will herald the end of nut production and trigger wholesale migration from rural areas?
Will the Commission take steps to rectify this situation?

(1) SEC(2002) 797.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

As reminded by the Honourable Member, during 2001 and 2002, the Commission carried out a global
analysis of the Community nut sector. In short, the results were:

(cid:1) despite the positive effects of marketing and quality improvement plans, introduced in 1989 and
gradually coming to a close, nut production in the Community remains chronically non-competitive
overall;

(cid:1) nut production plays a fundamental part in protecting and maintaining the environmental, social and

rural balance in many regions.

The proposal recently submitted to the Council and the Parliament (1) represents a fundamental shift in
policy for the nut sector. Firstly, it is a new regime and not at all a new extension of the old improvement
plans. Secondly, this proposal
is put forward as a market measure, while containing a strong ‘rural
development’ aspect.

C 192 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

As far as the budget is concerned, the figures proposed reflect the will to ensure budget neutrality with the
current Community expenditure on improvement plans:
the Community spent EUR 970 million in
12 years. It is foreseen to cover a large part of the productive area, which has been estimated at 800 000
hectares (ha). This explains the level of EUR 100/ha. The proposed cofinancing is limited and optional.
The Community aid will be made available to nuts producers whether or not they are members of a
producer organisation.

The proposal of the Commission therefore tries to strike a balance between those Member States who
think it is excessive (cid:1) and others who think it is insufficient. It gives a degree of targeted support for
competitive production while ensuring the continuation of sustainable production in non-competitive
areas.

In addition to this scheme, the Community provides a number of tools to address this type of situation. In
fact, financial assistance towards improving production and marketing is available through the operational
fund schemes provided through Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the
common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (2). Moreover, financial assistance to support
the important environmental and social role of nut production can be obtained through the Rural
Development measures.

Consequently, the Commission is not considering further steps as suggested by the Honourable Member.

(1) COM(2003) 23 final.
(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2003/C 192 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Mrs Cresson

According to Press Release IP/03/101 dated 22 January 2003, the Commission has decided to send
Mrs Cresson a statement, for her to comment on, setting out possible breaches by her of her obligations
when she was a Commissioner.

In doing so, the Commission is heeding the call made by the European Parliament, in its resolution of
if appropriate, Mrs Cresson’s
29 November 2001 on the protection of
financial
misconduct should be referred to the Court of Justice.

interests (1),

that,

In paragraph 21 of
employment of a dentist as scientific adviser to the former Commissioner, accusations had been made.

its resolution, Parliament recalled that,

in addition to the affair involving the

Inter alia, that:

(a)

there had been irregular conduct as regards the award of several contracts to a firm with which she
had connections, shortly before taking up office as a Commissioner,

(b)

she had had an expensive apartment in Brussels made available free of charge to one of her advisers;

(c)

she had had contracts for inconsequential studies and research awarded to a German lawyer as cover
so that he could visit her office and possibly gain access to and influence sensitive cases (Leuna affair)
with which the Commission was dealing at that time.

Can the Commission say whether it has taken up these points and whether these accusations are the
subject of the statement submitted to the former Commissioner for her comments?

(1) OJ C 153 E, 27.6.2002, p. 325.