WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/03 by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission. Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 concerning rural development: support for less-favoured areas.
Date: 2003-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: dissemination of EU information, economic analysis, less-favoured region, policy on agricultural structures, regional aid, report, rural development, sustainable agriculture

C 78 E/572

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Both assessments require information to be provided to the public ‘within a reasonable time in order to
give the public concerned the opportunity to express an opinion’ before consent is granted. The results of
the consultations with the concerned parties must be taken into consideration in the consent procedure.
Impacts on ‘human beings, fauna and flora’, ‘soil, water, air, climate and landscape’ and ‘material assets and
cultural heritage’ must be included in the assessment, together with the interactions between these factors.
Alternatives and mitigating measures must also be considered. Radiological effects will form part of the
impacts to be assessed.

If development consent is granted, specific measures under the Euratom Treaty and secondary legislation
will be applicable. All practices involving radioactive materials are subject to Council Directive 96/29/
Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general
public and workers against
there are notification
requirements under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty in the case of disposal of radioactive waste.

ionizing radiation (4).

the dangers of

In addition,

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.
(4) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

(2004/C 78 E/0606)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/03

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 concerning rural development: support for less-

favoured areas

In its reply to paragraph 78 of the Special Report, the Commission states that it is to carry out an overall
analysis of the impact of the support scheme for less-favoured areas by the end of 2003 (1).

1.
Has the Commission in the meantime carried out an overall assessment of the impact of the support
provided to less-favoured areas over past decades? If so, when will this assessment be forwarded to
Parliament? If not, why not?

2.
In the course of producing its assessment, has the Commission been able to make use of, or will it be
able to make use of, information and assessments provided by Member States or by national or regional
auditing authorities concerning support for less-favoured areas? Is the Commission prepared to provide a
summary of the reports received?

3. What guarantees does the Commission have that the assessments and information provided by
Member States are comprehensive and reliable? Is the data suitable for mutual comparison between
Member States?

‘Cross-compliance’ requirements are expected to play a significant part in the common agricultural
4.
policy. The way in which these requirements (cid:1) for example,
‘good agricultural practice’ (cid:1) are
incorporated in the support scheme for less-favoured areas is highly unsatisfactory. This is mainly because
the concepts and standards applied are vague and ambiguous. How and when does the Commission intend
to eliminate this shortcoming?

(1) OJ C 151, 27.6.2003, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

1. and 2. Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period, including the
less-favoured area measure, were to be presented by the Member States by the end of 2003, which was
done for almost all programmes. A Community-level conspectus of these evaluations will be available in
2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations, from the ex-post
evaluations and from a special evaluation of the less-favoured areas.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/573

The evaluation at present available to the Commission is for the previous programming period
(1994-1999). That Community-level evaluation analysed whether the policy objectives defined in the
relevant Regulations were achieved, and uses the national ex-post evaluation reports to support and
illustrate the analysis.

The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (1) measures for improvement of agricultural
structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation:

(cid:1) the support system for the less-favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the

impact of natural disadvantages on production costs,

(cid:1) the lack of a common, standard definition of support in these areas may, however, be a factor
explaining the undercompensation in some of them and the overcompensation in some of those
where the handicap is small or even insignificant compared to the ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the
Member State concerned.

3.
The quality of the evaluations made at national level is ensured by applying the relevant common
rules specifying the scope of the evaluations and how they are to be carried out (Articles 54 to 57 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (2)). Those rules also require common evaluation questions to
be defined and a common structure for the reports to be followed.

Under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (3), by 1 January 2005 Member States
4.
must define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental
conditions on the basis of Annex IV to that Regulation, taking into account the specific characteristics of
the areas concerned, including soil and climatic conditions. Those standards will facilitate implementation
of good farming practice as defined in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002, entailing, as a
minimum, compliance with the general mandatory environmental requirements.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures, OJ L 142,

2.6.1997.

(2) 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.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending
Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94,
(EC) No 1251/1999,
(EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001,
OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

(EC) No 1673/2000,

(EC) No 1254/1999,

(2004/C 78 E/0607)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3522/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2003)

Subject: Specific import tariffs on photographic products for the People’s Republic of China

In March 2003 I put a written question to the Commission on the import tariffs that the People’s Republic
of China is imposing on photographic products (E-1289/03 (1)).

In its answer to these questions the Commission includes the comment that the application of specific
duties on photographic products in China has in several cases led to higher duties than the consolidated ad
valorem rate. In response to this finding the Commission has raised the problem both bilaterally with the
Chinese authorities and in the context of the WTO Transitional Review Mechanism. As a result the
Chinese authorities have undertaken to make the Commission request
the subject of a thorough
investigation.