WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Export subsidies for oats.
Date: 2004-03-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, United States, agricultural production policy, agricultural trade, export policy, export refund, oats

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/663

Furthermore, the Commission is currently studying the harmonisation across the EU of conditions of use
of the radio spectrum for short-range devices including security alarms. Part of this analysis will consider
how best to enable the effective operation of such devices via agreed technical parameters and appropriate
radio spectrum frequencies.

(1) Directive 1999/5/EC of

the Parliament and of

the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and

telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(2004/C 84 E/0747)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/04

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Export subsidies for oats

Oats are grown on a very large scale in Finland. With the aid of export subsidies they have been exported
to, among other places, Canada and the United States. At present the Commission is unwilling to pay
export subsidies because cereals are in short supply in the EU area on account of last season’s crop failures.
Finland was one place where crops did not fail, with the result that farmers’ grain bins are full of good
oats.

Since oats are not used in central Europe, there is no significant market for them in southern Europe and
other parts of the EU that would in any event need to import cereals. The Finnish oat harvest is at the
moment lying in the farmers’ grain bins because oats do not go to the EU regions that need cereals and the
substantially lower export subsidies are insufficient to enable them to be exported to North America.
It ought to be possible to export oats to North America because they are used there in massive quantities.

What specific measures will the Commission take, and within what time-frame, to enable oats to be
exported to North America? Will it continue to pay export subsidies for oats and raise them back to their
former level with a view to reviving full-scale exports to North America? If so, within what time-frame?
This matter is urgent.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

Contrary to all other cereals, the EU had a normal 2003/2004 harvest of oats both in terms of quantity
and quality, leading to a certain export surplus from Finland and Sweden. Indeed, the EU cereal production
in the EU decreased from 209 million tonnes to 183 million tonnes. For the first time in many years, the
EU overall production fell significantly below internal consumption (about 190 million tonnes). This led to
a critical supply situation, in particular for feed grains.

The Commission recognised that additional internal demand for oats is limited since oats have limitations
in normal animal feed formulation. Consequently, the Commission opened the oats export tender on
15 October 2003, allowing subsidized exports as from the beginning of the oats harvest. Until 12 March
2004, the Commission granted export refunds for a total quantity of 247 840 tonnes. This quantity
constitutes a major part of the oats surplus during the campaign.

C 84 E/664

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Of course, and taking account of the EU cereal deficit, the Commission intends to encourage additional
internal oats use in compound feed. In addition, the oats market is a particular one, where there is only
one buyer (United States), and world prices are fixed in this market. Consequently, the Commission’s
management of the oats export tender intends to support oats prices in Finland and Sweden, but
maximizing the competitive element in export tenders in order to have a minimal impact on world prices.
The Commission intends to pursue this policy until the end of the 2003/2004 campaign. The oats export
tender will be open until 24 June 2004.

(2004/C 84 E/0748)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0722/04

by María Herranz García (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject: COM in olive oil

Quite apart from the fact that it does not take into account the realities of Spanish production, the
proposed reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil has a number of other harmful
features
for private storage, even though those
arrangements have not made it possible for swift, flexible action to be taken in response to any disruption
in the market).

the current arrangements

(such as retention of

Would the Commission reconsider its proposal by bringing the arrangements for the private storage of
olive oil into line with the realities of the market and by incorporating an automatic opening and closing
price mechanism?

Furthermore, under the Commission proposal the number of olive trees in an olive grove may not differ
by more than 10 % from the number registered on 1 January 2005 in the olive-oil GIS. Is the Commission
not aware that, in restricting the increase in the number of olive trees to 10 % when an olive grove is
replanted, it is seriously damaging the interests of Spanish olive groves by preventing the replanting of
groves which cannot be adapted to modern cultivation techniques?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The private storage scheme is intended for the management of crisis. Therefore, its triggering shall not be
automatic but dependent on a decision by the Management Committee which, after assessing the market
situation, may decide on the appropriateness of opening the scheme. On the other hand, the Commission
proposes to maintain unchanged the reference prices. This is consistent with market trends over the last
years where, in spite of a mounting demand, olive oil prices have remained relatively stable thanks to the
very important increase of production.

In 1998, the Council decided that under the Common market organization (CMO) no aid may be paid to
additional olive trees or the relevant areas planted after 1 May 1998, with the exception of areas covered
by a programme approved by the Commission. This very principle is embodied in the current proposal for
both the decoupled payment and the aid for olive groves. From 1 May 1998 onwards, farmers planting
additional olive trees have to be able to operate in the market with no Community support.

Concerning the aid for olive groves, the Commission proposal requires that the number of trees does not
differ by more than 10 % from the number registered on 1 January 2005. This provision aims to ensure
that the structural features of the grove which made it eligible for support due to their environmental or
social characteristics are maintained in future.