WRITTEN QUESTION E-2101/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Common agricultural policy reform — capping.
Date: 2003-06-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural guidance, aid system, aid to agriculture, distribution of aid, reform of the CAP, support policy

C 78 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2101/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Common agricultural policy reform (cid:1) ‘capping’

(25 June 2003)

A frequent topic for discussion in debates on the reform of the CAP is that of deciding whether or not a
ceiling should be imposed on the amount of aid/subsidy which, under any heading, may be allocated to a
given farm or to a farmer on an individual basis. This is customarily known as ‘capping’.

On this subject, impressive arguments of a social nature are normally put forward (and also, these days,
ones of a financial nature, since ‘capping’ would enable significant amounts of CAP funding to be released
for the benefit of the new CAP headings, thereby reducing pressure on other mechanisms such as
modulation).

The Commission:

(cid:1) Would it therefore say why it does not advocate strict capping of CAP subsidies?

(cid:1) Does it not believe this to be an imperative of justice?

(cid:1) For what reason does it not take advantage of the resulting major financial benefits in order to
improve the redistribution of aid and incentives and to provide greater support for the reformed CAP’s
new budget headings?

Answer given by Mrs Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

In its Communication on the Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy of 10 July 2002 (1), the
Commission did advocate capping of direct payments. However, it turned out in the following discussions
that no consensus was possible among Member States on the introduction of strict capping.

Thus, the Commission proposed, in the context of modulation and degressivity, to cut direct payments
while granting a franchise to those farmers who receive smaller amounts of direct payments. According to
this proposal, the cuts in direct payments were to be fully reimbursed up to an amount of EUR 5000 in
direct payments received and half for all amounts between EUR 5000 and EUR 50 000. The money was to
be spent on rural development measures.

In the final Council decisions, modulation was adopted with a franchise of EUR 5 000. As regards
degressivity, the Commission proposal was not taken up. Instead the introduction of a mechanism of
Financial Discipline has been announced.
the
proposal concerning Financial Discipline would include a franchise of EUR 5 000 and possibly other
franchises.

In this respect, a Commission Declaration states that

Further options for redistributing money among different regions and agricultural sectors have been added
to the provisions on the optional regional application of the single farm payment scheme.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Comparative study of special needs teaching

(25 June 2003)

EP resolution A5-0377/2001 (1) of 15 November 2001 called on the Commission to carry out a
comparative study on the functioning, funding and results of the various systems of teaching for pupils