WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Net contribution to the common agricultural policy.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, common agricultural policy, economic and social cohesion, net contributor

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/407

(2004/C 78 E/0428)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2460/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Anti-competitive actions of the Irish State in the electricity market

The Irish State has announced the results of the latest AER support scheme for renewable energy. The main
beneficiaries are subsidiaries of the national electricity utility ESB and their partner companies.

Given that the ESB is absolutely dominant in the Irish electricity market, with enormous resources at its
disposal, does the Commission consider that permitting ESB subsidiaries to participate in the AER
competition constitutes a distortion of the market? Does it further amount to a discrimination, given the
fact that it can use the extensive resources it has accumulated under State ownership, with its State
backing, to undercut independent producers?

Is the Commission willing to instruct the Irish State to halt the awards to ESB subsidiaries and partners
while it investigates the foregoing questions in relation to this competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission state aid decision regarding the rural electrification scheme (AER) (1) does not impose any
requirement as to the nature of bidders. It is designed to increase the volume of electricity produced from
renewable sources of energy in Ireland and there is nothing to prevent subsidiaries of the Electricity Supply
Board (ESB) from participating in this increase provided that they satisfy the necessary conditions for
bidding successfully.

The Commission takes the view that, as the majority shareholder in ESB, the Irish State is free to manage
the company’s capital as it sees fit, provided that it complies with the market-economy investor principle.
In the case at issue, the Commission does not possess any information suggesting that ESB subsidiaries
receive aid from their parent company in the form of, say, supplies at lower-than-market prices.

The Commission has no intention, therefore, of amending its above decision so as to exclude ESB
subsidiaries from the AER scheme or of intervening in the awarding of contracts to ESB or its partners.

(1) Commission decision in Case N 553/01, OJ C 45, 19.2.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0429)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Net contribution to the common agricultural policy

(29 July 2003)

In the second report on economic and social cohesion in the EU the Commission stated that Portugal was
a net contributor to the common agricultural policy (CAP).

In answer to my Written Question P-0897/01 (1) the Commission produced the figures on which it had
based that assertion. According to the Commission, Portugal’s net contribution to the CAP between 1989
and 1998 amounted to EUR 2 000 m, in other words over EUR 260 per inhabitant.

That being the case, can the Commission say whether Portugal is still a CAP net contributor? Using the
same method as for the period between 1989 and 1998, can it supply updated figures for the period
between 1998 and 2002?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 213.

C 78 E/408

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

With regard to the methodology for measuring the impact on Portugal of the agricultural price and market
policy, which therefore does not consider rural development policy (second pillar), as used in the second
cohesion report,
it should be noted that this method takes into account welfare effects not only on
agricultural producers and food processors, but also on consumers and taxpayers. In that sense, it differs
from calculations based on net budget position but gives a more complete picture of the position of
Portugal, with regard to the cost or gain to the Portuguese economy from the agricultural market policy
(first pillar).

For the calculation of those figures, the Commission has focussed his efforts on compiling the data
requested by the Honourable Member for the period 2000 to 2002, in order to monitor the changes as
from the time of the implementation of the Agenda 2000.

Using the same method as for the period 1989 to 1998, the Commission can report that the annual net
effect in that period, at current prices, is given as follows:

Net effect for Portugal

2000

− 227,1

2001

+ 4

(million euros)

2002

− 108,7

In terms of budget transfer, calculated on the basis of the gain or loss from the European Agriculture
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (cid:1) Guarantee budget relative to the percentage contribution to the
total Union budget, the net position of Portugal, which has been positive since 1994, has had the
following recent evolution:

2000

2001

2002

(million euros)

Net budget transfer
for Portugal

+ 74,7

+ 221,6

+ 115,8

(2004/C 78 E/0430)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2580/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Expectations of an increase in the production of counterfeit euro bank notes in thinly-populated

countries where the euro is important as a parallel currency

1.
Can the Commission confirm that, to date, the production of counterfeit money in the euro zone has
been concentrated in thinly-populated areas in France and Spain and that this has resulted in losses of
EUR 16 million for consumers and business?

2.
Do new technologies where, for example, computer printers replace offset presses increase the
potential for producing counterfeit bank notes which are difficult to distinguish from genuine ones, despite
the use of watermarks, holograms and metal strips?

3. What is current ratio of counterfeit euros to the other widely used currency, the US dollar? Is the
counterfeiting of euros moving towards the dollar level?