ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1811/98

by Ulla Sandbæk (I-EDN) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Report on Zimbabwe's Campfire Programme by the IEPC

The Zimbabwe Campfire programme is a well known African Community-based development initiative which has been commended for its results in terms of improvement of rural livelihoods, poverty alleviation and the conservation of wildlife and its habitats in Zimbabwe.

Recently, a US-based group called "Indigenous Environment Policy Centre" (IEPC) produced a 48 page report entitled "The Case of Zimbabwe's Campfire programme: Rhetoric or Reality" in which the programme is literally mangled.

Is the Commission aware of the IEPC report?

If so, does the Commission agree with its content and recommendations?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the report made by the Indigenous environmental policy centre (IEPC). Although never directly involved with the Campfire programme, the Commission has followed the programme in those geographical areas where the Commission has undertaken rural development projects.

Due to methodological shortcomings, the Commission does not consider the IEPC report as conclusive evidence of success or failure of the Campfire programme in Zimbabwe.

The IEPC report is based on a methodology as well as a basic framework for financial and economic analysis that would not be acceptable for a donor evaluation of a development project. The report seems to be based on selective interviews with illegal squatters and an exclusive focus on problems that have faced the Campfire programme. The report's financial analysis is of insufficient depth to challenge existing evidence that communities do receive a meaningful percentage of profits and that investment in wildlife management has increased due to the Campfire programme.

The failure of a development programme cannot be demonstrated by simply listing the problems it faces. In this context, the report fails to question what the current situation would be without the programme, a question that an evaluation would normally address. For instance, there is evidence that total loss of wildlife habitat in Campfire areas is much smaller when compared to the general level of wildlife habitat loss in the Zambezi valley. Furthermore, a programme of this nature does not only have quantitative results, but entails a number of processes (e.g. empowerment of local communities or increased levels of self-determination) that would also need to be analysed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1599/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Taiwan spirits taxation and GATT

Has the Commission considered that acceptance of the interim tax offer for spirits with Taiwan may breach the equal treatment for like-products as set out in Article III of GATT?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1597/98, E-1598/98 and E-1599/98 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The Commission is fully aware of the size of the Taiwanese export market for spirits and has attached great importance to the elimination of the discriminatory tax treatment long imposed on Community spirits in Taiwan.

The Taiwanese government has already submitted to the legislative Yuan (Taiwan's Parliament), a draft alcohol and tobacco tax law which will, upon entry into force, set up a taxation regime consistent with World trade organisation (WTO) provisions. Under the new legislation, Scotch and Irish whisky, like other whiskies will be subject to a 12,5 % duty (to be eliminated in the year 2000), a tax of 185 new Taiwan dollars (NTS) per litre as well as to the business tax (presently 5 % of the value of the products).

In the context of the negotiation of Taiwan's market access offer for WTO accession, the Commission has obtained a commitment from Taiwan to terminate the discriminatory taxation regime in advance of WTO accession. Taiwan would, pending the entry into force of the new WTO compatible legislation, implement an interim regime that approximates its provisions. On average, Scotch and Irish whisky would even be subject to a lower level of taxes and duties than under the future alcohol and tobacco tax law. If the new legislation is not yet in force by 1 January 1999, all spirits would be exclusively subject to a tax of 198 NT$ per litre. This would rapidly lead to the elimination of all discriminatory aspects of Taiwan's tax regime on spirits. In the absence of an agreement on Taiwan's market access offer, there would be no guarantee of an elimination of discrimination before Taiwan's accession to the WTO. As a result, the Commission considers that the offer made by Taiwan would have a significant positive impact on the Scotch whisky industry.

The Commission would also point out that it is not correct that, under the interim regime, there would be a difference of 242 NT$ per litre between Scotch and Irish whisky and other whiskies. In relation to the taxation of spirits, Taiwan's market access offer only contains commitments applicable to the Taiwanese side and no obligations for the Community. Taiwan, not yet being a WTO member, does not have to comply with Article III of General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) 1994 before its accession.

Finally, the Commission is of the view that acceptance of Taiwan's offer does not breach the Community's obligations under WTO agreements or under Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1603/98

by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Moratorium on seed patents

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has called for an end to applications to register as intellectual property seeds which have been deposited in trust in the collections of its agricultural research centres throughout the world and available to the international community. These seed collections, which include more than half a million examples, represent the world's most important deposit of ex situ plant genetic resources and are the key to improving crops throughout the world, particularly in the developing countries. The agreement concluded between the CGIAR and the FAO includes an undertaking not to register this genetic information as intellectual property. The call for a moratorium on seed patents is a result of the complaint made by the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) in January 1998 following the ultimately unsuccessful attempt by Australian research institutes to claim intellectual property rights over a variety of chickpea covered by CGIAR-FAO agreements. Further investigation revealed that intellectual property applications had been lodged for other protected varieties.

Does the Commission know whether any institution or body belonging to the European Union has applied for intellectual property rights over any variety of seed deposited at the research centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)?

If so, will it say which bodies and what species are involved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 1998)

The Commission is not aware of any institution or organisation in the Community that has applied for intellectual property rights on plant material received from the Consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR) centres.

The CGIAR centres hold genetic resources in trust for the international community. As trustees of genetic resources the CGIAR centres recognise their responsibility to exercise due care and diligence in conserving the material for the use of present and future generations and make it readily available for use for the public good.

In the case of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture this is implemented through agreement with the Food and agriculture organization (FAO) and the recipient has no right to apply for, or obtain, intellectual property rights on the germplasm or related information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1933/98

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Subject: The EU and the prevention of plant diseases

It is well known that appropriations from the general budget have been allocated for the prevention of a number of animal diseases in the EU, including BSE and swine fever.

In addition to these there are reports from a number of countries of new plant diseases arriving in Europe from South America. Has the Commission any information on what diseases these are and how they came to Europe?

Have there been instances of negligence in border controls, and what plans are there to combat these diseases?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 1998)

The Commission is aware of the risks of pests and diseases being brought into the Community with imports of plants and plant products from non-member countries.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that Community plant-health arrangements were set up by Council Directive 77/93/EEC(1), as last amended by Commission Directive 98/2/EC of 8 January 1998 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community(2). The "plant health provisions" seek to provide protection against "quarantine organisms", specifically in association with materials for planting and certain materials intended for use which impinge particularly on plant health, such as wood, potatoes and citrus fruits, as well as parts of certain species used for decoration (e.g. cut flowers and branches).

Member States have to check consignments to ensure compliance with the provisions. If consignments or parts of consignments do not comply with the provisions of the Directive, e.g. due to the presence of harmful organisms, they are intercepted by the Member States in order to avoid the introduction of harmful organisms into the Community. The Member States and the Commission are notified of the interceptions. Thus, in 1995, 11 interceptions of consignments of plant products from South America containing harmful organisms were notified. There were 8 interceptions both in 1996 and 1997, and 3 consignments of plant products from South America were intercepted during the first half of this year.

The Commission checks the effectiveness of plant health controls carried out by the Member States at the points of entry into the Community, and has not detected any instances of negligence during the controls on imports from South America.

(1) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977.

(2) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/98

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Equality of opportunity and precarious employment

According to recent research findings from Eurostat, part-time work and fixed-term contracts are steadily replacing permanent and full-time employment in all EU Member States. These findings indicate that young people and women are the groups most likely to have insecure jobs without any prospect of advancement or financial independence. Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to reverse this unfavourable trend which is undermining equality of opportunity in employment?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

According to the Labour force survey 1996(1), 16,3 % of all employees were part-time workers. However, only 5,4 % of male employees were part-timers compared to 31,5 % of female workers. Securing better conditions, better rights and better status for part-time workers is thus of enormous importance from the equal opportunity perspective.

The Commission considers that Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by the Union of industrial and Employers' confederations of Europe (UNICE), Conseil européens des entreprises publiques (CEEP) and the European trade union confederation (ETUC)(2) has taken a significant step forward in this regard. The framework agreement aims firstly to prevent any form of discrimination against part-time workers and to improve the quality of part-time work, and secondly to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis and in doing so to contribute to a flexible organisation of working time. The agreement requests Member States and the social partners to identify and review obstacles of a legal and administrative nature which may limit opportunities for part-time work and, where appropriate, to eliminate them.

The social partners are currently involved in similar negotiations on the subject of fixed-term contracts and the Commission hopes that a framework agreement on this important subject will also be possible.

The Commission also draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the many rulings already given by the Court of justice on the prohibition of discrimination against part-time workers as regards pay(3) or promotion(4).

(1) Eurostat, Statistics in focus - Population and social conditions. 1997/8.

(2) OJ L 14, 20.1.1998.

(3) Case C-457/93, Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e.V. contre Johanna Lewark, (1996), ECR I-243.

(4) Case C-1/95, Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern, (1997) ECR I-5253.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1812/98

by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Euro-regional road telematics project for the Lisbon-Madrid corridor

The Commission is developing a series of Euro-regional road telematics projects in the Union, such as ARTS, which runs from Lisbon to France through north-eastern Spain.

In view of the above, can the Commission say what stopped it from planning another Euro-regional telematics project for the Lisbon-Madrid corridor, crossing the Extremadura region? Is there any prospect of its being planned? If so, when?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 1998)

The ARTS Euro-regional project is being developed as part of the projects funded by the Community through the trans-European transport networks (TEN) budget line.

The project started in autumn 1997 and aims to improve the continuity and quality of road traffic management and traffic information services on the main international corridors between Spain, France and Portugal. The South corridor Lisbon-Evora-Mérida-Madrid through the region of Extremadura is part of the project.

The Commission is considering further support for the project in 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1855/98

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Crédit Lyonnais

What steps has the Commission taken following the draft agreement reached with Crédit Lyonnais to maintain existing employment levels in all Crédit Lyonnais' branches and subsidiaries?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 1998)

Following an agreement reached with the French Government on the measures required in return for the considerable amount of state aid granted to Crédit Lyonnais, the Commission decided on 20 May 1998 to authorise the extra aid for the bank. This aid supplements the aid already approved by the Commission in 1995 and 1996 and brings total aid to within an estimated range of between FRF 102 billion and FRF 147 billion, an amount of aid to a single enterprise which is unique in the history of the Community.

The Commission has not reached any agreement with Crédit Lyonnais. Where state aid is concerned, it has contact with the national authorities only. It is for them to present, in cases of restructuring aid such as the case at issue, a plan for restructuring the assisted enterprise which is as compatible as possible with their employment policy objectives. It is for the Commission to ensure that, if any jobs are preserved by means of such aid, this is not at the expense of employment in other Member States to an extent which is contrary to the common interest. On the basis of the procedure which it recently terminated, the Commission considers that the aid granted to Crédit Lyonnais is compatible with the common interest and does not have such an effect, in particular because Crédit Lyonnais will be obliged to reduce its activities very considerably in terms of a reduction in its balance sheet of over a third compared with the situation at the end of 1994. Limiting state aid and imposing compensatory measures on the least successful credit institutions receiving aid are measures that help to consolidate the banking sector, and this can only contribute in the long term to the development of a competitive financial sector in Europe and to the Commission's and the Member States' objectives with regard to employment and the fight against joblessness.

The Commission is very conscious of the employment implications of company restructuring and encourages social dialogue in such situations. The challenge of industrial change will be met successfully only if effective and constructive social dialogue is developed at all levels, and initially at individual company level, particularly on key issues such as the preservation of employment. This is also a central recommendation of the high-level group on the economic and social implications of industrial change set up by the European Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1630/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(27 May 1998)

Subject: Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund (1996)

The Annual Report of the Cohesion Fund (1996) (COM(97) 302 final) describes the activities of the Cohesion Fund in 1996, which turned out to be a key year in many respects, since the Cohesion Fund became fully operational and it was possible to carry out ex-post evaluation of completed projects. 1996 was also the year of the mid-term review of the eligibility of the Member States and also the first year when checks were carried out by the Commission on the implementation by the Member States of the programmes aimed at economic convergence and on the application of the principle of conditionality.

Can the Commission make the Member States aware of the need for better regional distribution of investments, paying special attention to the least favoured inland, rural and urban areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 1998)

The Cohesion fund provides financial assistance for the poorest Member States, which have a per capita GNP of less than 90 % of Community average, to reach levels of sustainable budgetary deficits while maintaining high levels of public investment in transport and environment.

The Cohesion fund has not amongst its objectives to combat regional disparities in economic activity and the Fund cannot assist specific rural or urban activities.

The initiative to submit to the Cohesion fund applications for projects in the areas of trans-European transport infrastructure and environment lies exclusively with the beneficiary Member States. The Commission is not in a position to refuse a particular application for reasons of the location of a project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1914/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Implementation of Regulation (EEC) 2080/92

As regards implementation of Regulation (EEC) 2080/92(1), does the Commission believe that parts of an afforestation project other than land planted with trees (fire-breaks, roads, and waterbodies) should be included in the project for the purposes of the premiums to cover maintenance costs and income losses?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 1998)

The Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture instituted by Council Regulation (EEC) 2080/92 of 30 June 1992(2) is designed to promote afforestation of agricultural land and is part-financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

The aid scheme may comprise: aid for afforestation costs (including, in the case of the Portuguese programme, aid for building forest roads, firebreaks and waterpoints); an annual premium per hectare afforested to cover maintenance costs in the first five years; an annual premium per hectare to cover loss of income resulting from afforestation of agricultural land; investment aid for improving woodlands by providing firebreaks, waterpoints and forest roads, and for improving cork oak stands. The first three categories of aid are intended for afforestation undertaken on agricultural land, while the fourth is intended for existing farm woodland.

Under Regulation (EEC) 2080/92, maintenance premiums are reserved for afforestation and are payable for five years following planting. Premiums covering loss of income are payable to persons undertaking afforestation of agricultural land.

If the infrastructure work referred to by the Honourable Member is undertaken in the course of afforesting agricultural land, its cost would form part of the afforestation costs and the newly-planted areas and their infrastructure would therefore definitely be covered by the premiums for maintenance and loss of income.

Conversely, if the infrastructure work is to be undertaken in existing woodland - whether or not of the type covered by the fourth category of aid referred to above (farm woodland) - or in other agricultural areas not affected by afforestation, the premiums for maintenance and loss of income cannot be granted. It should be stressed that the main purpose of the aid scheme is to promote afforestation of agricultural land.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 96.

(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2082/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Aid for small and medium-sized businesses in the Perama shipyard area

A large number of small and medium-sized firms operate in the shipyard area at Perama, mainly carrying out boat repairs. These firms help alleviate the high level of unemployment in the area. In recent years, they have experienced a great many problems, which has led to a decline in employment, even though they do quality work and have introduced a wide range of innovations. Their problems are mainly concerned with modernization, funding and their ability to raise loans.

What steps will the Commission take towards resolving the problems of these businesses?

Answer by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of the important economic and social role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the shipyard area at Perama (Athens), where they are involved mainly in ship repairs. They provide maintenance for seagoing vessels and make a major contribution to maritime safety.

Because of overcapacity in the sector, however, the shipbuilding - and especially ship repair - sector is subject to restrictive rules governing the granting of aid.

In spite of their flexibility in terms of availability and the excellent standard of their work, a great deal of their work cannot be planned and depends for the most part on external factors.

Some SMEs do not own their facilities, however, but rent them as required.

In these circumstances, financial institutions are at times reluctant to provide loans for modernisation. Also, in view of the risk involved, the banks offer loans at higher rates of interest than for large enterprises in the sector.

If SMEs in the shipbuilding sector want to modernise their facilities, they are in theory eligible for help from the European Structural Funds. The Community will thus be able to provide support, provided that there is no increase in capacity.

As for the financing of SMEs, the Commission is aware of the difficulties encountered by many European SMEs in securing medium- and long-term loans at reasonable rates. The Commission will raise this matter during the round-table talks with the banks and the SMEs that are scheduled to start in autumn 1998.