WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. CAP: intended change in the ratio between payments to large and small farms, a ceiling for aid per farm and limiting the damage caused to third countries.
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural surplus, agricultural trade, agriculture-trade relationship, aid to agriculture, least-developed country, reform of the CAP, restriction on competition, rural migration, smallholding

C 84 E/620

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

It may also be noted that the rate of reduction in farm numbers and in agricultural employment is largely
independent of the common agricultural policy’s evolution. The CAP’s objective is to develop sustainable
agriculture (cid:1) i.e. agriculture which is competitive, economically viable and environmentally compatible (cid:1)
by improving production structures at a socially acceptable cost.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=MEMO/02/198|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=

(2004/C 84 E/0694)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: CAP: intended change in the ratio between payments to large and small farms, a ceiling for aid per

farm and limiting the damage caused to third countries

1. When the reforms of
the Common Agricultural Policy proposed by the Commission are
implemented, what impact does the Commission expect them to have on the ratio between payments to
large and small farms: will it remain unaltered or will it change? What impact does the Commission intend
the reforms to have in this respect?

2.
Apart from the changes which the Commission has already proposed, does it consider additional
measures necessary to prevent further emigration from rural to urban areas, which would ultimately cut
agricultural production for the EU’s internal market?

3. Will the Commission work towards a subsidy model which safeguards the interests of small farmers
better than at present, for example by setting a limit (cid:1) e.g. EUR 30 000 (cid:1) for financial aid to a single
farm?

4. When weighing up the shape which the reform of the CAP should ultimately take, will
the
Commission also bear in mind the impact on small farmers in other parts of the world, particularly their
uncertainty regarding the supply of food and industrial raw materials for the internal market in the Third
World due to market-distorting, relatively cheap imports of farm surpluses from EU Member States?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

1.
The new system of direct payments to be introduced with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
reform will, in principle, not change the distribution of direct support between farms since it is based on
historic references. However, taking into account the introduction of direct payments in the dairy sector
and the option available to Member States for a regionalisation of the Single Farm Payment, redistribution
of payments between farmers, within a region, may take place. Moreover, modulation of direct payments
will explicitly favour smaller farms, since the first EUR 5 000 are exempted from modulation.

In its July 2002 Communication (1), the Commission had proposed to modulate direct payments by up to
20 %, to increase the franchise according to the number of annual worker units and to introduce a ceiling
for direct payments per farm of EUR 300 000. This would have triggered a stronger redistribution effect
but was not supported by a majority of Member States.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/621

An important element of CAP reform, as decided by the Council in 2003, was to reinforce the rural
2.
development policy in favour of rural areas, by shifting funding from the first to the second pillar.
The more targeted support under the second pillar should certainly help those rural areas still facing a net
out-migration. However, the Commission’s impact assessments show that, while some further exten-
sification of agricultural production is expected, no disruptive impacts on overall levels of EU production
are foreseen.

3.
In its July 2002 Communication, the Commission proposed a 20 % modulation of direct payments,
a higher franchise and a ceiling for direct payments per farm of EUR 300 000. These provisions, and in
particular the proposed ceiling, were not included into the CAP reform package. For the time being, the
Commission has no intention to issue a proposal to change the direct payment scheme in this respect.

There is no doubt that the process of reform of the CAP, begun in 1992, is beneficial for world trade
4.
and offers new opportunities for developing countries. However, the situation and problems of developing
countries are different from country to country and therefore the impact of CAP reform may also differ
between different developing countries. In order to particularly support the least developed countries, the
EU has offered a wide range of highly preferential concessions both on trade and on the more general
issues of development.
Indeed, the EU is the world’s largest importer of agricultural products from
developing countries and the main contributor in the world for financing development and cooperation.
The objectives of these interventions are to reinforce, amongst other things, infrastructure, institutions and
education. In case of emergency aid the EU strictly respects the international rule for a constructive use of
food aids.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0695)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0546/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Involvement of the EU in a development project in the Mexican federal state of Chiapas which is

causing the resumption of an armed conflict

1.
Is the Commission aware that, according to the Mexican newspaper ‘La Jornada’ of 3 February 2004,
five non-governmental organisations in the south-eastern state of Chiapas consider the European Union to
have been involved in an attack on the village of Nuevo San Rafael, controlled by the Zapatista movement
and occupied by members of the Chol tribe, in the remote nature reserve of Montes Azules, which consists
of primeval forest, on 19 or 22 January, in which attack 23 houses were set on fire, the occupants fled,
the village was permanently cut off from the outside world by soldiers and the land is being returned to
the former big land-owners to enable them to fell the primeval forest?

Does this attack mean that the cease-fire between the armed indigenous rebel movement EZLN and

2.
the government army is over?

3. Was this attack encouraged by the fact that the EU has concluded an agreement concerning a
development project worth EUR 15 million with Governor Pablo Salazar, possibly in part in connection
with Plan Puebla Panama, which comprises major infrastructure projects in Central America from Panama
to nine poor federal states in Mexico, which require the indigenous Indian population to make way for
newcomers and to enable the land to be put to new uses or at least compel that population to give up the
autonomy which it in practice enjoys?