WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Measures to combat desertification in the EU.
Date: 2003-07-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU action, Spain, action programme, aid policy, desertification, erosion, rural development, soil protection, sustainable development

C 70 E/94

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

The Commission considers thus that it did not change its mind, as the Honourable Member suggests, but
merely gave a preliminary assessment and invited interested parties to comment in order to be able to take
a final decision. The criteria that it applied in that case were those stated in its final Decision (4),
in particular, under heading VI entitled ‘assessment of the aid.’

2. and 3.
The assessment of the notified scheme was made on the basis of the following considerations:
State aid character of the measure, its legality and exemption grounds. Within the heading of exemption
grounds, the Commission analysed the compatibility of the scheme with a number of its guidelines and
finally its compatibility with Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty in the light of Community objectives and the
effect on trading conditions between Member States.

low-return investment,

The cost-effectiveness of the scheme was addressed by the Commission in points 56 and 57 of its
Decision. According to the first, ‘as a regeneration instrument, the stamp duty exemption could fulfil the
economic rationale of contributing to reducing risks for investors in brownfield sites. Regeneration has
traditionally been perceived as a high-risk,
in particular because there is the
perception of weak market demand; bureaucratic grant arrangements; unclear procedures in the programs
and lack of funding initiatives. Favourable conditions for investment include a perceived total return as
well as new business opportunities, transparent existing strategies and the level of risk in the project.’ Point
57 follows: ‘it is only when the risk is reduced that investment will increase: this would have several spin-
off effects such as reducing the exit-cost, which in turn will further reduce the risks of investing in urban
regeneration. The temporary exemption of the stamp duty is likely to contribute to activating the market
for regeneration and derelict land in deprived areas as well as having spill-over effects. The system itself
would be transparent which matches market demands.’ This is in addition to paragraph 62 which states
‘the average amount of aid to the individual undertakings in the proposed scheme is GBP 50 000 (around
EUR 78 500). Aid of this magnitude does not normally distort or threaten to distort competition. In cases
where the aid beneficiary receives the stamp duty exemption several times, or receives it cumulated with
other kinds of aid, the aid could be significant and thus affect competition and/or affect trade. It is
therefore imperative that the cumulation of aid is closely monitored and controlled.’

Finally, the Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the cost-effectiveness of the
measure will also be analysed ex post by the Commission at the time of receiving the detailed annual
imposed as a condition by Article 3 of the Commission Decision. The second paragraph of
reports,
Article 3 requires a degree of detail of the reports to allow the Commission to make an evaluation of the
effects of the scheme on the physical regeneration of the areas that benefit from it.

The Commission is well aware that for every aid scheme it approves, there may be beneficiaries who
4.
would also have invested, created jobs, provided training, etc. without the incentive of State aid. The aid
might nevertheless have affected their choice of
its timing.
The Commission is unable to assess the real dead-weight cost of the Stamp duty exemption for non-
residential properties in disadvantaged areas.

the project or

the size of

location,

(1) OJ C 102, 27.4.2002.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for application of Article 93

(now 88) of the Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(3) Case C-204/97 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-3175, paragraph 33; Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94

British Airways and Others and British Midland Airways v Commission [1998] ECR II-2405, paragraph 59.

(4) Commission Decision 2003/433/EC of 21 January 2003 on the aid scheme ‘Stamp duty exemption for non-

residential properties in disadvantaged areas’ notified by the United Kingdom, OJ L 149, 17.6.2003.

(2004/C 70 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Measures to combat desertification in the EU

(21 July 2003)

During the World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought organised by the United Nations in June
2003, data was made public on the effects of desertification in Mediterranean Europe. This deterioration of

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/95

land is far from slowing down, and already affects over 300 000 square kilometres of coastline. In the
specific case of Spain,
the risk of desertification has been evaluated at 31 %, entailing a cost of
EUR 200 million.

It its answer to written question E-1287/00 (1), the Commission emphasised its intention to devote
attention to this serious environmental problem and granted Member States the possibility of applying for
Community aid to combat desertification in the context, inter alia, of the policy supporting sustainable
rural development and of the Cohesion Funds.

Has the Commission received from Spain, since 2000, any application for aid for specific programmes to
combat desertification? If so, could the Commission give a breakdown of the projects that have received
aid and the amounts granted?

Since Spain is one of the countries covered by Annex IV of the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification, has it notified the Commission of the preparation of any national or regional action
programmes to combat desertification?

Does the Commission have any plans,
desertification at Community level?

in the medium term,

for a specific initiative to combat

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2003)

1.

(a) Regarding the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), most of
the Operational
Programmes of the regions affected by serious erosion problems (Comunidad Valenciana, Andalusia,
Murcia) have specific measures within their environmental priorities specifically directed towards the
fight against soil erosion. These measures include interventions dealing with the restoration of
degraded land through the planting of new vegetable cover, the conservation and improvement of
forested areas and the correction of torrential riverbeds. Currently there are no specific anti-erosion
projects within the Cohesion Fund.

(b) The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides support for a large range of agri-environmental
commitments that, by applying more than the usual good farming practices, offer opportunities for
building up soil organic matter, reduce erosion and prevent soil salinisation. Support is also provided
for measures aiming at sustainable forest management and development of forestry, the maintenance
and improvement of forest resources and the extension of woodland areas.

Though Spain’s 2000-2006 rural development programme includes no action designed specifically to
tackle desertification, the Commission has approved a series of measures which may help towards that
end. These include water resource management measures designed to rationalise and economise the
use of irrigation water by modernising and improving the existing infrastructure and forestry measures
to tackle erosion by improving and/or reconstituting plant cover on the ground.

and Guarantee

Improvement of water resources is included in Spain’s two horizontal programmes to improve
production structures, and the overall Community contribution from the European Agriculture
is
Guidance
EUR 1 000 million. As
land,
improvement of forestland and prevention of forest fires)
included in the national and regional
programming, the Community contribution from EAGGF totals around EUR 1 500 million for Spain
as a whole.

intended for management of water

(mainly afforestation of agricultural

the forestry measures

Fund (EAGGF)

resources

for

Although overall management of the structural fund and rural development programmes is shared
between the Member State and the Commission, it needs to be underlined that the actual selection,
implementation and execution of projects fall almost entirely within the competence of the national
and regional authorities.

C 70 E/96

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

(c) The Commission’s Directorate-General for Research has co-financed several European research projects
concerning desertification in the Mediterranean.
In fact, a new call for proposals has just been
launched under the Environment Programme, with a deadline of 9 October 2003. This call addresses
issues of (i) Assessment of Vulnerability to Desertification and Early Warning, and (ii) Combating
desertification, with a view to providing input to Annex IV to the Convention on Combating
Desertification.

2. Within the framework of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UN-CCD), Spain
is currently in the last phase of finalising its National Action Programme (NAP) (1), which is the main
instrument for implementing the provisions of the Convention. Furthermore, Spain is included in the
regional Annex to the UN-CDD covering the Northern Mediterranean. A Sub-regional Action Programme
(SRAP) is currently not available. An overview of projects of relevance to the Annex IV Group countries, as
submitted at the UNCCD/CRIC-1 Meeting of November 2002, can be found on the UNCCD internet
site (2).

In the medium term, the following Community activities are expected to further strengthen the fight

3.
against desertification significantly:

(a) On 16 April 2002 the Commission adopted a communication entitled ‘Towards a thematic strategy
for soil protection’ (3). This communication addresses desertification in the context of soil degradation
processes such as erosion and depletion of organic matter. The communication acknowledges that the
Mediterranean region is severely affected by erosion. The impact on the environment, water reservoirs
and agricultural land represents a major threat for these regions. The communication represents a first
step towards the development of a Soil Thematic Strategy as requested by the 6th Environmental
Action Programme. The Commission is presently in the process of further developing this Soil
Thematic Strategy (4). Detailed policy options in response to soil degradation due to erosion, organic
matter depletion, soil contamination and soil monitoring will be presented in the forthcoming soil
proposals for 2004;

(b) The 2003 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform involves further measures contributing to soil
protection. A new modulation system is established and the funds made available by it will increase
the budget for rural development measures, including agri-environmental and afforestation schemes.
There will also be an increase in the maximum Community co-financing rate for agri-environmental
measures, which becomes 85 % in Objective 1 areas and 60 % in other areas. Moreover, a single
decoupled farm income payment comes to replace most of the direct payments under several
Common Market Organisations and is expected to reduce incentives for intensive production. Farmers
receiving direct payments will be subject to a system of compulsory ‘cross-compliance’. This includes
the obligation to maintain all agricultural
land in good agricultural and environmental condition,
which entails compliance with standards relating to soil protection, maintenance of soil organic matter
and soil structure, to be defined by Member States. Where a farmer fails to comply with these
standards, a reduction in payments will be applied as a penalty.

(1) http://www.unccd.int/actionprogrammes/northmed/northmed.php
(2) http://www.unccd.int/cop/reports/northmed/regional/2002/group_of_annex_iv_countries-eng.pdf
(3) COM(2002) 179 final.
(4) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/soil/index.htm

(2004/C 70 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2414/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: IAS application to companies not incorporated in the EU

According to the IAS Regulation (Article 4), companies governed by the law of a Member State that also
have securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market will have to prepare their consolidated
accounts in conformity with IAS as of January 2005. The Regulation allows (Article 5) EU countries to
apply IAS to other companies. According to CESR’s consultation paper of June 2003 on disclosure
requirements for prospectus, financial information must have been prepared according to IAS Regulation,