WRITTEN QUESTION No. 557/97 by David MORRIS to the Commission. Subsidized EU exports of beef to South Africa
Date: 1997-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, MORRIS
Subjects: South Africa, Southern Africa, beef, export refund, export subsidy, meat processing industry, restriction on competition













EUR-Lex - 91997E0557 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0557

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 557/97 by David MORRIS to the Commission. Subsidized EU exports of beef to South Africa  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0114 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/97 by David Morris (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 1997)Subject: Subsidized EU exports of beef to South AfricaSubsidized EU exports of beef to South Africa have increased significantly in the last three years. This has damaged the meat industries of neighbouring countries, especially Botswana and Namibia, which traditionally supplied beef to South Africa. When this problem was raised at the November Council of Agriculture Ministers, Commissioner Fischler agreed 'to keep a watchful eye on developments'.Has he now seen enough to recognize the damage that subsidized EU export of beef is inflicting on these Southern African countries?What action does the Commission intend to take to rectify the present unfair situation?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1997)In August 1996, the South African authorities wrote to the Commission alleging that subsidised imports of beef and pork from the Community were posing a threat to the South African meat industry and were affecting other developing countries in the Southern African region that export to the South African meat market. They also alleged that meat imports from the Community were being sold at prices well below local price levels. They requested a decrease in the level of export refunds to encourage South African importers to source more meat in neighbouring countries.In its response, the Commission highlighted the commitments undertaken by those who subscribed to the conclusions of the Uruguay Round. It reminded South Africa that all contracting parties to the agreement gave a range of undertakings and, in the field of agriculture, these included accepting domestic support, market access and export subsidies. The Commission emphasised that it had no wish to undercut local prices and requested that South Africa supply detailed information to support its claim so that the Commission could act accordingly. Unfortunately, the South African authorities did not reply to this request.Nevertheless, in an effort to improve the situation concerning the meat trade within the Southern African development community the Commission decided with effect from 1 February 1997 for the purposes of export refunds for beef and veal to group together the African countries within the same geographical zone. The new measures mean a reduction of approximately 8.5% in the level of export refunds for certain cuts of boneless meat exported from the Community to the regions of Eastern and Southern Africa. These measures are additional to the 10% global reduction in the level of refunds in the meat sector, for exports to all destinations, which took effect from 15 January 1997.