WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/03 by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature.
Date: 2003-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, bilateral agreement, cooperation agreement (EU), human rights, negotiation of an agreement (EU), signature of an agreement, third country

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/441

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The situation where a ‘Member State insists on the same stocking rate of sheep, for fenced pasture and
adjoining commonly-own unfenced hillside, within the one farm’ does not seem to exist in the other
Member States. A provision of the current Article 13 of the Commission Regulation (CE) No 445/2002 of
26 February 2002 (1) laying down conditions for commitments to extensify livestock farming states at
point b) that ‘the livestock shall be distributed across the farm in such a way that the whole of the grazed
area is maintained, thus avoiding both over-grazing and under-utilisation’.

The Commission did not specifically ask for a cull of 800 000 sheep as mentioned in the second and third
part of the question but rather for cross compliance between the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme
(Agri-environmental scheme) and Sheep Headage Schemes as well as compliance with Union habitat
protection requirements laid down in Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds (2) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and
fauna (3). On 13 June 2002, Ireland was condemned by the Court of Justice with regard to widespread
vegetation loss and erosion linked to excessive sheep stocking levels in the west of
Ireland (Case
C-117/00). It is obliged to take measures to comply with this Court ruling as soon as possible. In order to
address the problem of overgrazing of sheep on commonly owned areas (commonages) and resulting
environmental damages in such sensitive areas, destocking measures were deemed necessary. Thus a
Supplementary Measure A was approved by the Commission in 1998 under the Rural Environmental
Protection Scheme (REPS) to compensate farmers in those areas for following an Agri-environmental plan
which would reduce sheep numbers to sustainable stocking density and which would have special
conditions to allow for the regeneration of degraded areas. The Agri-environmental plan would conform to
framework plans to be drawn up for each commonage.

While the commonage framework plans were defined, interim measures were taken in order to address the
problem of overgrazing in six western counties where the environmental damages were more serious. This
required the immediate 30 % reduction in sheep number and some 140 000 sheep were permanently
removed during the period November/December 1998 from the commonages in these counties. Such a
cross compliance measure was put in place before 1998 payments of Sheep Headage Schemes. Payments
of 1999 and 2000 sheep headage to farmers was limited to the number applied for subject to an overall
ceiling of 70 % of the 1998 entitlement to the scheme.

Full cross-compliance was introduced with effect from 2001. It is a condition of the 2001 headage
schemes that farmers with commonage land must participate in an approved REPs plan (including
measure A) or a national plan (State Aid scheme approved by the Commission in September 2003) before
payment can be made under the Ewe Premium and less favoured areas (LFA’s) Compensatory Allowances
schemes. Information concerning the reduction of number of sheep due to cross compliance since 2001 is
not available.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance
and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 78 E/0463)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature

In its answer to my Question E-0520/03 (1) of 13 February 2003 about respect for women’s rights in
Pakistan, the Council has told me that, so far, not one agreement with a third country in which a human
rights clause has been incorporated as an ‘essential element’ has been suspended.

C 78 E/442

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

It is true that the EU has in a number of cases where the essential elements of the agreement have been
infringed suspended some provisions of the agreement. This was the case for the financial provisions of
the Cotonou Agreement with Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d’Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti
(2000) and Liberia (2001). What infringements of essential elements took place in these six countries?

In the case of Croatia (1995), Pakistan (1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995) the signature of the
cooperation agreements was postponed because of concern about human rights.
is of
course a broad term. What kind of infringements of human rights were involved in this case in these four
countries?

‘Human rights’

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The Commission places great emphasis on the human rights clause in agreements of the Community with
third countries as a positive instrument to promote human rights and democracy. Structured exchanges on
the basis of the clause with third countries offer a more realistic way of realising the goals of the human
rights’ clause than the application of rigid criteria for the suspension of parts of an agreement.
there are circumstances when punitive measures may be
Nevertheless,
required. Where such measures are eventually taken after careful assessment of the prevailing particular
situation in a country, it is important that timely consideration is given not only to the impact of the
measures but also as to what conditions will govern their lifting.

the Commission agrees that

Since 1996, the human rights clause has been invoked on a number of occasions, including in the case of
the countries mentioned by the Honourable Member, for justifying the request for formal consultations
with a third country, or suspending cooperation and imposing other sanctions. In all of these cases, the
political, democratic and human rights situations in the respective country were carefully assessed. In
doing so, the Commission avoided employing any ‘mechanistic’ or ‘typological’ approach, which would
have failed to provide the necessary comprehensive appreciation of a precarious situation in third country
concerned.

The Commission pursues the same approach in deciding on whether to slow down or suspend
negotiations on a bilateral agreement or the signature of such an agreement, as mentioned by the
Honourable Member.

(2004/C 78 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2916/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Community financial assistance for transnational producer organisations

Regulation (EC) 2200/96 (1) provides for Community financial assistance for producer organisations on
condition that they have established an operational programme and set up an operational fund.

Operational funds are financed from producer contributions and Community assistance representing a
maximum 4,1 % of the producer organisation’s sales. The funding ratio is 50 %: 50 % in the case of
national measures. That means that in such cases the operational fund represents a maximum 8,2 % of
sales.

In the case of transnational measures the funding ratio is 60 %: 40 %. However, a problem arises here in so
far as the percentage of assistance remains fixed at a maximum 4,1 %. That means in effect that the
operational fund is restricted in the case of transnational cooperation, although it is precisely such
cooperation that the regulation seeks to promote.