# CE2004088EN.01011301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/113 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/113

---

(2004/C 88 E/0119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2759/03

by Fernando Fernández Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Method of calculating financial assistance to traditional ACP banana suppliers

Subject:

As part of the technical and financial assistance measures for traditional ACP banana suppliers, the Commission determines the annual funding for each country by a method of calculation allowing for the ‘competitivity gap’ between ACP recipient countries and third country banana suppliers and for the importance of banana production for the economy of the supplier concerned (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 (1)).

1

The Commission measures competitiveness according to the difference between the average cif (cost, insurance, and freight) price of third country bananas and the average price of bananas from each ACP country at the Union's frontiers. These figures, which are compiled by Eurostat, are obtained from the customs declarations of importers in the individual Member States. Unfortunately, however, they do not appear to correspond to any single definition, resulting in serious errors.

Even when the bananas come from the same place of origin, the cif price may vary widely in a given Member State, whereas in other Member States the cif price of all bananas is the same. Because there is no harmonisation, the Commission does not employ the proper tools to gauge the competitiveness of ACP banana suppliers, and the aid called for by the Council and Parliament is thus largely wasted.

Can the Commission explain what relationship is considered to exist between the market value of bananas and their competitiveness? Could not the competitiveness of bananas be gauged more accurately if production costs were taken into account? Can the Commission give an assurance that, instead of drawing inferences from the market price, it will measure the competitiveness of ACP bananas on the basis of a real cif (cost, insurance, and freight) price and do its utmost to put right the injustices that have been found to occur?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

(21 October 2003)

As the Honourable Member correctly points out, the individual amounts allocated annually to each traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) banana supplier are calculated in accordance with the criteria set out in Commission Regulation No 1609/99 (2). In particular, the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) price as shown in Eurostat statistics is used as a benchmark to measure the competitiveness gap between ACP and Third Countries suppliers. Such figures — where they exist — are collected through the customs authorities of each Member State, in accordance with the values given in the declaration for release for free circulation. Since bananas are not subject to ad-valorem duties, the values are declared for statistical and VAT purposes and are based upon the customs value, in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 9 of Commission Regulation No 1917/2000 (3). The possible variations in the statistical values registered in different Member States are in all likelihood due to variations in the relevant data available to administrations in the absence of CIF prices for the goods — indeed, when releasing the goods for free circulation, their actual price is not always available. Although efforts leading to a complete harmonisation should be pursued, the different practices are compatible with the provisions in force.

2

3

The Commission rejects the view that aid is ‘largely wasted’, given that the Commission applies the criteria in a uniform and fair manner.

As to the possible measurements of the competitiveness of bananas, it can well be argued that better measures than the CIF price could be found. The Honourable Member mentions production costs as the most suitable tool. However, when the Commission regulation was designed, no other data was found which would meet at once the requirements of availability, accountability, and comparability and this is still the case today.

---

(1)  OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 14.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 establishing a special framework of assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas, OJ L 190, 23.7.1999.

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1917/2000 of 7 September 2000 laying down certain provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 as regards statistics on external trade, OJ L 229, 9.9.2000.

3

---