WRITTEN QUESTION E-3551/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Goatmeat subsidies — Application of Regulation 2550/2001 of 21 December 2001 to the Azores.
Date: 2003-12-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, agricultural guidance, agricultural quota, aid to agriculture, application of EU law, common agricultural policy, eligibility criteria, goatmeat, regional farm policy

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/825

(2004/C 78 E/0878)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3551/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: Goatmeat subsidies (cid:1) Application of Regulation 2550/2001 of 21 December 2001 to the Azores

Annex I(5) of Regulation 2550/2001 (1) of 21 December 2001,
laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation 2529/2001 (2) of 19 December 2001 on the common organisation of
the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat as regards premium schemes, includes the whole of Portugal, with
the exception of the Azores, as an area eligible for receiving the goat premium.

What criteria were used for excluding the Azores from goatmeat subsidies, when the rest of Portugal was
included?

Given the Council’s recent decision fixing the available milk quota for the Azores at the 1999/2000
marketing year levels, does the Commission not think that there is now a need to permit other alternatives
for agriculture in the Azores?

(1) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 105.
(2) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

On the eligibility of particular zones for the goat premium, Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2529/2001
states:

A producer keeping she-goats on his holding may qualify on application for a premium for
maintaining she-goats (goat premium).

This premium shall be granted to producers in specific areas where the production meets the
following two criteria:

(cid:1) goat rearing is mainly directed towards the production of goatmeat;

(cid:1) goat and sheep rearing techniques are similar in nature.

A list of such areas shall be established following the procedure referred to in Article 25(2).

The Azores can of course be included in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2550/2001 provided that the
above requirements are met. We are not aware that they are met and Portugal’s representatives on the
relevant management committee have never asked for the Azores to be included.

The Honourable Member will note that if goat rearing is directed mainly to milk production the first
requirement is not met. Moreover inclusion of zones in Annex I may be followed by retrospective
verification on the spot of compliance with the criteria.

On the need for opening up more agricultural alternatives in the Azores, the Honourable Member should
bear in mind that:

(cid:1) as in other Union territories, farmers in the Azores are beneficiaries under the measures adopted for

common organisation of the markets;

(cid:1) the Azores benefit

from both the Union’s rural development programmes and the Poseima
programmes. In both cases the national authorities and the Azorean regional authorities have an
important role in determining what specific measures are to be given priority under the provisions in
force and hence in the opening up of viable alternatives to Azorean farmers;

C 78 E/826

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(cid:1) both the Azores’ milk quota and the Portuguese national ceiling for the suckler cow premium have

recently been increased;

(cid:1) national and regional aids can also be granted provided these are consonant with the single market

rules and Community law.

(2004/C 78 E/0879)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: Irregularities in DG Agriculture highlighted by the Court of Auditors

In Special Report No 9/2003 (1) covering, among other things, the issue of price of cereals, sugar, meat and
milk, the Court of Auditors drew attention to a high risk of fraud in the activities of the Commission’s
Directorate-General for Agriculture.

It would appear that there have been major delays in the procedure for setting prices and export refunds
and that over a two-and-a-half-year period two officials leaked the prices set for cereals before the markets
opened, for personal gain.

It would also appear that the two officials were discovered and removed from their posts, but only to be
transferred to another service within the same DG.

Further anomalies also appear to exist within the DG, particularly within the management set-up. In
particular, a Court of Auditors senior official has stated that, despite the fact that a five-year rotation rule is
applied in respect of all such posts elsewhere, the rule has never been implemented within the DG.

Given the above and the scandals that have only too often rocked the EU’s administration in recent times,
would the Commission state:

1. whether the above information is correct, and whether it can provide further details on the issue of

prices and the allegations of fraud?

2. why, if such anomalies do in fact exist, it has not conducted any enquiries and taken suitable action?

3. how it is that, despite the commitment made by the Commission President to ensuring transparency

in administrative structures, irregularities are still to be found within its directorates-general?

(1) OJ C 211, 5.9.2003, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

We cannot find in Special Report No 9/2003 by the European Court of Auditors any reference to a high
risk of fraud in connection with the Directorate-General for Agriculture’s activities.

Nor do we understand to what considerable delays
Honourable Member refers.

in setting prices and export

refunds

the

On the matter of allegations against our officials, at this stage we have only the information supplied by
the Belgian judicial authorities, namely that, following a report by the European Anti-Fraud Office to the
Brussels Royal Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2001, an investigation was launched by an examining
magistrate in Brussels. It was conducted by the Belgian authorities in appropriate confidentiality and led to
the arrest of two people in Belgium, one an official of the Directorate-General for Agriculture, who was