In the light of its own Everything-But-Arms initiative, will the Commission contact its trade counterparts
in the United States and argue for the extension of duty-free and quota-free access for all least-developedcountries?
Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0695/01and P-1068/01
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission
(14 May 2001)
The Commission understands the concern of Bangladesh about its market position and market share
following the adoption of the American Trade and Development Act (USTDA 2000) from which, togetherwith the other Asian least developed countries (LDCs), it is excluded.
As far as the Community is concerned, Bangladeshs status as least developed country implies duty- and
quota free access for its textile and clothing exports to the Community and this has enabled the country tosignificantly increase its exports of these products to the European market, becoming the Communitys10th largest supplier.
The Commission would encourage other developed countries to grant similar treatment to LDCs, and is in
this respect encouraged by the reaction of countries such as Chile and New Zealand to the CommunitysEverything but Arms initiative (EBA initiative) which extends duty and quota-free access to theCommunity market for all products from the 49 least developed countries.
The EBA initiative reflects the importance the Community attaches to a full integration of developing
countries, in particular the least developed countries, into the multilateral trading system. This is of coursea subject of discussion with other developed country trading partners, including the United States.
(2001/C 350 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/01
by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Suckler cow premiums
Would the Commission agree that the recent seven point plan for the UK is unfavourable to beef
production in the UK, and especially for Wales? Given the proposal to reduce the number of productivesuckler cows eligible for the suckler cow premium, the UK will be affected disproportionately  with 18 %of the suckler cows population in the UK compared with only 11 % of total EU beef production.
Does the Commission accept that it is unfair that the UK has to introduce these changes when we already
have in place an over thirty month scheme that has removed animals from the market for the last fiveyears?
Does the Commission also accept that reducing the number of suckler cows in the market will have
a negative effect on consumers as it will reduce the higher quality beef being produced for the Europeanconsumer?
Is it not also illogical to further concentrate beef production from dairy herds where a much higher
incidence of BSE has occurred.
Finally, will the Commission look again at the calf slaughter premium scheme? This scheme can be carried
out at lower cost than the other measures being proposed by the Commission such as the change to thesuckler cow scheme. It will remove the lower quality animals from the market and will also have a morerapid impact in the re-balancing of the market.C 350 E/30 EN 11.12.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(2 May 2001)
The Commission proposals are covering the short term as well as the longer term and are including
measures in favour of a higher quality production.
The measures proposed for the suckler cow premium are focusing in particular on limiting production in
the future so as to contribute to market equilibrium. The application of these measures in the wholeCommunity is the condition for their full effectiveness.
Since beef and veal production depends largely on the number of cows, future meat production can be
reduced by cutting down the number of suckler cows. Nevertheless, the measures are formulated in such
a way that the impact on the farmers income is small. The minimum number of heifers keeps the numberof premium paid to the farmer unchanged but reduces the number of calves born.
The number of dairy cows is determined by the total reference quantity of milk allocated to the producer.
Therefore, the premium for processing of calves would be a solution to achieve a reduction of the meatquantities put on the market in the short term. Nevertheless, this solution appears to be a theoretical one.The Commission recalls that such a premium was under severe attack from a lot of animal welfare
organisations and the Berlin European Council agreed that this kind of premium should only be kept as
a possible measure to be financed by national aids.
(2001/C 350 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0709/01
by Isidoro SÆnchez García (ELDR) to the Commission
(8 March 2001)
Subject: Entry into force of the new COM in bananas
On 19 December European Union Agriculture Ministers approved the COM in bananas, which was to
enter into force on 1 April or, if more time was needed to finalise the technical details, on 1 July.
The first date is now a month and a half away. In view of this, and given that the COM is a step forward
for Canary Islands banana producers in that it limits the quantities of bananas from non-European
producers allowed onto the Community market by means of a first come, first served quota system, when
does the Commission think that the necessary technical measures will be completed to enable thesearrangements to take effect?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(16 May 2001)
The second paragraph of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 216/2001 of 29 January 2001 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (
1) provided for
application of the new importation arrangements to be deferred until 1 July 2001.
The Commission did indeed defer their application until 1 July 2001 by means of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 395/2001 of 27 February 2001 fixing certain indicative quantities and individual ceilings for theissuing of Community import licences for bananas for the second quarter of 2001 under the tariff quotasor as part of the quantity of traditional ACP bananas (
2).
Following intensive discussion with the other trading partners the Commission has since reached
a common basis of understanding with the United States and Ecuador, thereby enabling the banana disputeto be resolved.11.12.2001 EN C 350 E/31 Official Journal of the European Communities