WRITTEN QUESTION P-1421/03 by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Agricultural policy.
Date: 2003-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: beef, farm price support, farmers' income, milk product, reform of the CAP, sugar, vegetable, wheat

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/79

(2004/C 65 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1411/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE)
and Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 April 2003)

Subject: Implementation of Interreg programme in Albania

Representatives of the Greek ethnic minority in southern Albania and Mr Karamelos, a Member of the
Albanian Parliament, claimed in a recent press conference at the European Parliament (2 April 2003), that
only 30 % of the funding under the Community’s Interreg II programme for measures on both sides of the
Greek-Albanian border has been utilised, while Interreg III (which was set up for the period 2000-2006)
has not yet begun. Consequently, no support has been received from Community sources for projects and
initiatives to improve the position of the internationally recognised Greek minority in southern Albania.
The Greek minority suffered persecution at the hands of the tyrannical totalitarian regime of Enver Hoxha
for decades and still does not enjoy the fundamental democratic rights that are its due, as the EU
institutions have repeatedly pointed out. During their visit to Parliament, these same representatives
stressed that, twelve years after the collapse of the above regime, no census has been taken of the Greek
population of Albania as a whole in accordance with practices in all well-governed European countries.

Are these claims concerning the implementation of Interreg II and III correct? If so, what is the reason for
this delay, which is having an impact on the quality of life of thousands of Greeks and Albanians living in
southern Albania? How does the Council intend to exert pressure on Albania to carry out a credible census
of the Albanian population, along European lines, in order to determine the size of the Greek and other
minorities (gypsies, Roma, Slavs, etc.) living in that country?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council is not in a position to confirm the information reported by the Honourable Members.
1.
According to Chapter III ‘Community Initiatives’ of Title II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of
21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, the Commission is to lay down
guidelines describing, for each initiative, the aims, scope and the appropriate method of implementation.
In compliance with these rules, the Commission approved a communication on 28 April 2000 laying
down guidelines for Interreg III. In accordance with that communication, it is the responsibility of the
Commission to monitor, implement and evaluate the interventions covered by this Community initiative.

The Council welcomed the commitment undertaken by Albania within the Joint Consultative Task
2.
force context to try to provide accurate data on the size of its minorities by the end of 2003 at the latest.

(2004/C 65 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1421/03

by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Agricultural policy

How much does
the EU’s agricultural policy, how much of

the Commission assess

the producer

support estimate to be as a result of
is market price support and what proportion

this

C 65 E/80

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

of these amounts can be attributed to various products such as sugar, beef, dairy products, wheat
and vegetables?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 2003)

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Total Support Estimate, of which
the Producer Support Estimate (PSE) measures the share of economic transfers from consumers and
taxpayers to farmers in the Gross Agricultural Income resulting from goods produced, was developed to
assess the support an OECD economy is providing to the agricultural sector as a result of policy measures
i.e. financial budgetary payments constitute only part of it.

The methodology used has, however, a number of shortcomings since it bases the calculation of these
economic transfers (expressed in theoretical EUR or $ or other national currencies) on the price gap
between domestic and world market prices established under imperfect market conditions. It further
introduces market price fluctuations amplified through the application of currency exchange rates that are
an expression of the overall economic behaviour and monetary speculation. I.e. even if a policy does not
change the PSE may rise or fall due to these parameters.

In recent years OECD has stressed the production, market and trade distorting character of some support
measures (Market Price Support, Input and Output related payments) and put them into reference with
much less or non-distorting policies of de-coupled support such as area payments, direct farm income
support, payments on historical entitlements etc.

While the Commission has consistently pointed out the deficiencies and misinterpretations of the current
methodology i.e. the over-estimation of economic transfers, it has been vigilant as to the harmful effects of
certain policies on the domestic and world markets and the amount of this support that reaches the farm
enterprise directly (income transfer efficiency).

In ‘the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform- a long term perspective for sustainable agriculture’ the
Commission proposes policies to minimise the distorting character of support while assuring sustainability
and entrepreneurship for the agricultural producer through de-coupled measures in exchange for an
elevated level of Good Agricultural Practice including improved environmental care. Through de-coupling
the share of income the farmer receives from the support measure will substantially increase while
distorting measures, such as Market Price Support, will drastically be reduced.

OECD calculates the amount of Total Producer Support Estimate at EUR 100 266 billion for the average of
2000-2002, of which 57 % or EUR 56 820 billion are calculated to be Market Price Support (MPS) and
40 % directly attributable to specific Commodity Price Support. This figure is over-estimated due to a
number of factors, such as reference prices, currency exchange rates etc. and does not record 29 % of the
agricultural production where support levels are very low or non-existent (such as fruits and vegetables,
wine, flowers and ornamental plants etc.) i.e. the policy of the 71 % recorded commodities is extrapolated
for the remaining crops.

With regard to the specific commodities mentioned, amounts of MPS of the requested commodities are:
for sugar is calculated by OECD as EUR 1 131 billion, for beef and veal EUR 15 364 billion (mainly due to
the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) related measures), for milk EUR 7,71 billion and for wheat
EUR 4 488 billion. As explained earlier vegetables, except for potatoes, are not covered by the 71 % PSE
coverage. However all other included commodities together account for only EUR 5 674 billion.