WRITTEN QUESTION E-2619/99 by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Assistance for the British pigmeat industry.
C 303 E/82 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/199 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (1) applies to payments granted to farmers under support schemes in the framework of common market organisations. Under Article 3 Member States are obliged to take the environmental measures they consider to be appropriate (which may include support in return for agri-environmental commitments, general mandatory environmental requirements or specific environmen- tal requirements constituting a condition for direct payments). Member States shall decide on the penalties that are appropriate to the consequences of not observing these environmental requirements (e. g. reduction or cancellation of the payments granted under the market organisations). Under Article 5 money not spent due to the non respect of these environmental conditions ü as well as money saved by Member States which make use of the option to modulate direct payments (Article 4) ü will be available for reinforcing a Member Stateís budgetary envelope for ecologically positive support schemes (agri-environmental mea- sures, compensatory allowances in less favoured areas and in areas with environmental restrictions, afforestation). Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee fund (2) (EAGGF) foresees targeted agri-environmental measures which are the only mandatory measures to be included in any rural development programme. By this they get a prominent role within the new rural development policy and have a particular importance in the Communityís agri-environmental strategy. Common market organisations also foresee environmental provisions. Some of them have been strength- ened. In the new beef regime for instance, national envelopes now form a part of direct payments and may be linked to environmental conditions, and the extensification premium has become more effective by increasing the premia level and by introducing stricter environmental conditions. (1) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (2) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 303 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2619/99 by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 January 2000) Subject: Assistance for the British pigmeat industry The Commission has acknowledged that for a variety of reasons pig farmers in the United Kingdom are experiencing an extreme financial crisis. Will the Commission consider either of the following measures to alleviate at least some of the pressures which are forcing many farmers out of business: 1. the reintroduction of export refunds for EU pigmeat? 2. support for the UKís application for state aid to cover its BSE-related costs which have had a detrimental effect on the competitiveness of UK pigmeat? Can the Commission suggest other measures which the United Kingdom or the European Union may be able to take, in compliance with Community law, to help the UKís ailing pigmeat industry? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 January 2000) It is regrettable that pigmeat markets in all parts of Europe have experienced some very difficult times. However, the main reason for the poor prices is the continuous oversupply of pigmeat. 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/83 is true that United Kingdom has imposed some national measures, which increase the cost of It slaughtering of pigs. Some informal contacts have taken place between the Commission and British authorities to discuss what form an aid might take. At the present time, however, the Commission has not received any formal notification of proposals to grant aid. In order to be acceptable any aid must of course meet the conditions laid down by the EC Treaty. In particular, the aid should facilitate the economic development of the sector. Aids which are simply intended to offset trading losses are in principle not acceptable under the Community rules. Export refunds are currently available for a wide variety of pigmeat products including fresh and frozen meat and processed products. Granting of export refunds is a great help for the European pigmeat market, and has facilitated the exports of almost 800 000 tons of pigmeat to third countries in 1999. As the pressure in Community pigmeat markets has prevailed, the Commission has kept the relatively high export refunds available since more than one year. It is true that the Commission no longer pays an extra high refund for fresh and frozen meat destined for Russia. However, these exports still benefit from the normal refund. It should be underlined that the Commission has to take into account in its refund policy the limited demand in export markets, budgetary constraints, as well as the quantitative commitments of the World trade organization agreement. The Commission has discussed other possible measures (e. g. to create voluntary based funds) with Member States on several occasions, but so far these ideas have received little support from the majority of Member States. However, the Commission continues to reflect on this issue. (2000/C 303 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2622/99 by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 January 2000) Subject: Construction work in the Bustarviejo valley (Spain) A private company is planning to build a hotel in the Bustarviejo Valley (Community of Madrid, Spain), in the locality known as Tejeraí, the whole area of which is classified as a specially protected site where development is not permitted. According to the mayor of Bustarviejo, the project, which is the fruit of a private initiative, has obtained the necessary permits from the regional environment and public works authorities and from the local council. However, members of environmental and cultural associations, womenís groups, and huntersí and farmersí associations have pointed out that no studies have been undertaken to assess the impact on local flora and fauna, many of which are protected species, and believe that the project would seriously damage both the landscape and the environment, since the water supply would have to come from the river or from a well. They argue that the extraction of 7 000 cubic metres of water each year would affect agriculture, stock farming and forestry and that the sewage produced by more than 100 persons would certainly pose a threat of pollution to the river running through the valley. Bearing in mind that the Leader local action group in the Sierra Norte (Community of Madrid) would be contributing 16 million pesetas to the project, will the Commission say whether it complies with Directive 85/337/EC (1) on environmental impact assessment and Directive 92/43/EC (2) on natural habitats, and whether it is compatible with the objectives of the Leader programme? (1) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7