WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. CAP: consequences of the distribution of the reduction in income in agriculture and financing of techniques which promote animal welfare or are environmentally sound for use on small farms.
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal welfare, common agricultural policy, environmental protection, farm income, incomes policy, redistribution of income, reform of the CAP, smallholding, support policy

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/191

The reply of the Greek authorities to the letter of formal notice is under assessment. If it is established
that Greece has not complied with the above-mentioned Court judgment, the Commission will not
hesitate to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty.

Regarding action taken by the Commission to ensure that Greece complies with Community
legislation on waste, it must be recalled that the Court (4) recently declared that Greece had failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996
on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (5). In addition,
Greece has been referred to the Court of Justice (case C-163/03) over its failure to put in place an
adequate plan for the management of hazardous waste in the region of Thriassio Pedio (Prefecture of
Attiki). The referral also relates to its failure to avoid the pollution of groundwater by hazardous
waste.

The Commission will continue investigating any information, which gives sufficient reason to assume
that Greece does not properly apply Community legislation on waste.

3. An effective implementation of Community legislation on waste is, of itself, a guarantee of a high level
of environmental protection. Even if the Commission is responsible for monitoring the application of
Community law, the implementation of Community legislation falls primarily within the competencies
of the Member States. The Commission supports this process carrying out regular meetings with
national authorities and other stakeholders as well as answering their technical and legal requests.
In addition, Member States can make use of the many financial instruments and resources available to
comply with their obligations under Community legislation on waste.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.
(2) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004.
(3)
(4)
(5) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996.

Judgment of 13 June 2002, Commission/Greece, case C-33/01, ECJ Reports p. 5447.
Judgement of 5 June 2003, Commission/Greece, case C-83/02, ECJ Reports p. 5639.

(2004/C 88 E/0197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: CAP: consequences of the distribution of the reduction in income in agriculture and financing of

techniques which promote animal welfare or are environmentally sound for use on small farms

1.
Is the Commission aware of the report commissioned by the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries and submitted on 1 April 2003 by the Agricultural Economics Research
Institute (LEI) which analyses the impact of the Commission’s reform proposals on developments in
agriculture and particularly on farm incomes, and which indicates in particular that in the Netherlands the
areas under cereals and fodder maize will decline substantially while cultivation of potatoes and vegetables
will increase, the area of pastureland will increase by 5 % and family incomes will fall by 28,4 % from their
present level of approximately EUR 30 000, the largest fall being 49 % in dairy farming?

2.
How is this decline in income likely to work out for the EU as a whole in the categories < 25 ha,
25-50 ha, 50-75 ha, 75-100 ha, 100-500 ha, 500-1 000 ha and 1 000 ha, broken down in percentages by
type of farm in arable farming and livestock farming?

3.
In the reform plans, the Commission rightly intends to emphasise farming which promotes animal
welfare and is environmentally sound, as an additional condition for payment of subsidies. How will the
Commission ensure that this emphasis does not result in the most subsidies going to large farms which
have greater resources by means of which to apply new and expensive techniques, while smaller farms
which have already opted to adopt organic cultivation methods unaided are placed at a disadvantage?

C 88 E/192

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Small farms in the new Member States which currently operate without new environmentally friendly
4.
techniques are particularly likely to find themselves at a disadvantage as regards the share they receive of
grants to help finance desirable technical innovations. What will the Commission do to promote [‘prevent’?
(cid:1) translator’s note] this?

In view of the anticipated unintended effects, will the Commission amend elements of its reform

5.
plans?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the study prepared by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute
1.
for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform
LEI. The study refers to the Commission’s proposal
published in January 2003. Meanwhile, the LEI has published a new study assessing the impact of CAP
reform and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha Round (report No 6.04.03, February 2004). The
results of this latter study from LEI are similar to the majority of independent scientific studies analysing
the impact of the CAP reform.

2.
The Commission has estimated, as have a number of independent studies, that the income effect of
the 2003 CAP Reform is largely neutral. While for EU-15 the quantitative analysis projects a slight decline
of income of 0,5 %, for EU-25 income development under the CAP reform is projected to remain virtually
neutral (+ 0,1 %).

The Commission has not published detailed analyses about the income effects for different farm size
categories because income effects will strongly depend on the national implementation of the Single Farm
Payment scheme. In Member States, which intend to implement regionalised area payments, redistributions
of income from dairy and beef farmers, currently receiving high levels of direct payments per hectare, to
arable crop farmers, may take place. Implementing the Single Farm Payment on an individual basis does
not entail redistributions of income and income effects would remain neutral, along the lines estimated by
the Commission.

3.
The Single Farm Payment is based on a historical reference and, as such, does not alter the
distribution of support to farmers. Modulation, however, will have a positive redistribution effect for
smaller farms due to the franchise, as outlined in the reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question
E-0544/04 (1). Cross-compliance should not be seen as an additional condition for the direct payments but
as a penalty system for any farmer not respecting the compulsory standards found in Annex III of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2). In order to ease compliance with these compulsory standards, a new
measure, providing support for all farmers under rural development, was set up.

Upon Enlargement, the agricultural area in the EU will increase by about 30 %, while production will
4.
only increase globally by 10 % and total agricultural
income by 6 %, as compared to the EU-15. This
suggests a lower intensity of production in the new Member States. However, in order to assist farmers in
the new Member States in complying with compulsory EU standards, specific measures were foreseen to
include investments in the ‘Meeting Standards’ measure.

5.
The possible impacts of the 2003 CAP Reform on incomes, small farms and farmers in the new
Member States were deeply debated during the lead-up to the adoption of the Reform package and the
counter measures described above were introduced into the final agreement. Therefore, at this stage, the
Commission has no intention to revise those recently agreed measures. Nevertheless, the Commission is
aware that the forthcoming debate about the new generation of rural development programmes does offer
a further opportunity to reflect upon and, if necessary, reorganise the support offered to these measures.

(1) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 620.
(2) 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, OJ L 270,
21.10.2003.