WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3764/98 by Eva KJER HANSEN Direct payments to farmers
29. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 341/11 Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (5 February 1999) The Commission holds regular meetings with Member State representatives to discuss the millennium bug. Amongst the many issues discussed, Member States share information on the progress and activities of the public sector. Member States also work together with the Commission to solve problems in Community-wide telematic systems such as those financed by the IDA programme. (1999/C 341/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/98 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission (11 December 1998) Subject: Direct payments to farmers Will the Commission explain what the consequences are, in legal terms, of implementing the proposal for a regulation (COM(98) 0158 / CNS 98/0113 (1)) concerning direct payments to farmers under support schemes forming part of the common agricultural policy, which are paid in full or in part from the EAGGF, Guarantee Section? Could the Commission provide in its explanation an assessment of the legal position of the individual farmer, particularly in regard to administrative decisions, the reversal of the burden of proof and proportionality in laying down penalties? Could the Commission also provide an assessment of the discrimination that may arise from countries being able to introduce different rules on compliance with national environmental provisions, including the enforcement of those rules? Will it also assess the problems associated with the overall control of agricultural expenditure and reconciliation of the accounts? (1) OJ C 170, 4. 6. 1998, p. 93. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 January 1999) The proposed Council Regulation in question would set some common rules applying to direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy. The purpose of the rules is better integration of environmental objectives into the CAP, more fairness in its application and greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public. These aims would be achieved through giving Member States wider powers that would leave more responsibility in their hands and facilitate adjustment of the measures laid down to the specific situation in each part of the Community. Since the proposal is at the moment under discussion in Parliament and the Council, the Commission is unable to respond exhaustively to the Honourable Member’s questions and will focus on two essential elements of it. The Commission does not expect the environmental provisions of Article 3 to have any discriminatory impact. In fact it is in the first instance the diversity of environmental conditions in the Member States and the variability of national rules on environmental matters that are liable to affect equality of opportunity for farmers in the Community. The provisions proposed, accompanied as they are by Community application criteria, promise rather to help offset existing inequalities. Article 8 on payment restriction is a means of confining aid to genuine farmers, i. e. those whose farming is not principally motivated by the existence of direct support schemes. It undoubtedly responds to the public’s growing concern that agricultural aids be administered in a rigorously precise and effective way. Lastly, Article 5 explicitly requires Member States to apply the provisions of Article 3 in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and avoid market and competition distortions