WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1265/98 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. Discriminatory reduction in Community funds for fibre hemp- growing
5. 2. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 31/29 (1999/C 31/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1265/98 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (29 April 1998) Subject: Discriminatory reduction in Community funds for fibre hemp-growing For may years now, the European Union has encouraged the production of fibre hemp with a contribution of ECU 700 per hectare. In Italy, hemp-growing has been completely abandoned since the beginning of the 1970s owing to the introduction of anti-drug legislation. Leading national and international experts have unanimously acknowledged the need to reintroduce hemp- growing as a rotating crop, in accordance with Community directives aimed at cutting down on food crops, reducing the environmental impact and combating soil impoverishment and desertification, which are the result of single crop farming and unbridled use of land. In the absence of a hemp sector, since the crop has not been grown for decades, the European Union has a decisive role to play in reintroducing the crop; this role could subsequently diminish as the product penetrates the market. It has also been reported that a proposal to reduce the EU contribution has recently been put forward and discussed. Such a reduction would adversely affect the reintroduction of hemp-growing in countries which, like Italy, are only starting to grow it this year while favouring agriculture in countries in which it is economically well- established owing, in particular, to less punitive and stringent anti-drug legislation. In view of the present production aid system in many other sectors, which is actually contrary to free market rules, will the Commission take the necessary action to prevent Community aid to fibre hemp- growing for industrial purposes being reduced in a discriminatory manner compared to the aid provided for other crops or at least to ensure that it is not reduced in the case of countries like Italy, where it has only been possible this year to reintroduce the crop? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 June 1998) As regards the system of Community aid for hemp, in the 1998/99 price package the Commission proposed a reduction of 25 % in the subsidy per hectare (ha). This proposal reflects a twofold concern. On the one hand, the significant and continuous expansion of the Community areas sown to hemp (9 726 ha in 1995/96, 13 722 ha in 1996/97, 22 835 ha in 1997/98 and an estimate varying between 35 000 and 40 000 ha in 1998/99) can be attributed partly to the level of aid, which is particularly high in relation to that for other agricultural products, in particular arable crops. On the other hand, although it is not aware of any areas under hemp receiving Community aid which, in practice, were used to produce hemp for use as a drug, the Commission remains concerned by the question of controls, bearing in mind the potential risk of subsidising illicit hemp cultivation. In order to reduce the risks of improper use of the scheme, the Commission recently proposed the introduction of a system of obligatory contracts between producers and first processors. The proposed reduction in aid should thus constitute a brake on the recent increase in area and, therefore, supply better guarantees regarding the effectiveness of the control measures provided for in Community legislation. This proposed reduction is applicable to all Community producers and there cannot consequently be exemptions for producers in certain Member States, including those where hemp cultivation has just been reintroduced