WRITTEN QUESTION E-0352/04 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. The Parmalat case and its repercussions on milk and cheese production in Lazio.
Date: 2004-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, Latium, State aid, agricultural situation, bankruptcy, control of State aid, dairy farm, dairy industry, dairy production, economic consequence, regional farm policy, support policy

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/497

(2004/C 88 E/0509)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0352/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: The Parmalat case and its repercussions on milk and cheese production in Lazio

The consequences of the notorious Parmalat scandal have been felt particularly acutely by producers in
Lazio, since the company had purchased Rome’s central dairy and in practice controlled 70 % of the Lazio
market. This had serious repercussions on the entire national fresh milk sector, which is largely centred in
this region. Recent statistics show that Lazio is Italy’s fifth largest producer of fresh milk, with 33 % of
national production, and the leading consumer, whereas in the rest of Italy people prefer to buy long-life
or microfiltered milk.

Dairy farms in Lazio have thus been damaged in two ways, both by the risks of the current crisis affecting
Rome’s central dairy and the sums Parmalat owes to producers, whose milk reaches the factories via
associations and co-operatives.

The Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policy has already introduced a system of incentives for drawing up
‘sectoral contracts’ designed to support dairy farmers and encourage them to rationalise the internal system
of each food industry sector, in order to increase efficiency and production. This will make it possible to
remedy nation-wide some of the damage caused by the Parmalat crisis.

In view of the need to take specific action in the Lazio region for the reasons set out above, and bearing in
mind that the European Union has full competence in the area of regional agricultural policies, can the
Commission say:

1. whether the EU has any progammes to tackle crises and provide incentives to be implemented at

regional level;

2. whether the Region of Lazio may benefit from a fund to support farms in such cases;

3.

if not, whether the Commission can provide information as to how it may benefit from other forms of
funding already available in the sector, to be used for such purposes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

In Lazio the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) helps finance the Lazio 2000/
2006 rural development plan and the Leader+ programme. Neither includes any specific measures for
though they contain a package of assistance measure to promote
crisis situations in agriculture,
agricultural holding development, processing and marketing of produce, and rural development. Council
Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1)
therefore does not contain any suitable instrument for providing immediate assistance to small dairy
farmers stricken by the Parmalat crisis.

It is the Italian national and regional authorities that are responsible for delivering Community-financed aid
under the above programmes. The Commission monitors the programmes but is not responsible for
managing the various measures on the ground.

C 88 E/498

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The Lazio Assesorato all’Agricoltura as managing authority for the programme will be able to provide data
on the various recipients.

In reply to the Honourable Member’s third question, the common market organisation provides market
support instruments such as the quota arrangements, export refunds, measures for the disposal of butter
and milk powder, and intervention. But none of these instruments can be used specifically to help towards
a solution.

Under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty the Commission is responsible for authorising State aid by Italy
to the farming sector. Dairy farmers could possibly be helped under national or regional aid schemes
already authorised by us or new schemes notified under Article 88 or exempt under Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and
marketing of agricultural products (2).

When State aid in agriculture is notified we examine its compatibility with the common market in the
light of the above Regulation and the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector. Aid for
firms in difficulty is examined on the basis of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
restructuring firms in difficult.

We are at present examining whether Italian Decree Law No 16 of 27 January 2004 on urgent measures
in the agriculture and fishery sectors complies with the State aid rules. It provides support for dairy
farmers who have received no payment for their produce.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.2004.

(2004/C 88 E/0510)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0403/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject: Distortion of competition to the detriment of the environment and of working conditions in the

cheap production of the semi-finished product primary aluminium in Iceland

1.
Is the Commission aware that in Iceland, a country associated with the EU, in addition to the two
current aluminium smelters belonging to the Canadian firm Alcan at Hafnarfjordur (annual production:
173 000 tonnes) and to the American firm Norderal to the north of Reykjavik (annual production:
90 000 tonnes), a third aluminium smelter is to be built from 2005 in Reydarfjordur by the large American
firm Alcoa and with a planned annual production from 2007 of 295 000 tonnes of the semi-finished
product primary aluminium?

Is the Commission aware that Alcoa’s choice of location is dependent on the completion of the
2.
Karahnjukar project by the Icelandic national energy company Landsvirkjun which will create a 57 km2
reservoir several tens of metres deep and a series of dams, the largest being 750 m long and 190 m high,
as a result of which the unique Hafrahvammergjufur Gorge will disappear and, with it, habitats of
underwater animals?

3.
Is the Commission aware that the Italian construction company Impregilo, which submitted a much
cheaper bid than its Danish, British and German competitors, employs workers from Romania and
Portugal through an agreement with another Italian company, on much lower wages and subject to poor
conditions, in breach of the provisions of its contract to observe all Icelandic rules?