WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1723/97 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Ireland's contributions to Euratom
Date: 1997-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: CERN, Community budget, EAEC, Ireland, Member States' contribution, financing of the EU budget, nuclear safety, radioactive materials, research programme, transport of dangerous goods

C 45/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10. 2. 98

(98/C 45/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1723/97

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(7 May 1997)

Subject: Ireland(cid:146)s contributions to Euratom

Can the Commission give details of Ireland(cid:146)s annual contributions to Euratom over the past five years? What
percentage  of  Euratom(cid:146)s  annual  budget  do  Irish  contributions  account  for?  Can  the  Commission  give  a
breakdown  of  how  much  Euratom  spent  in  1996  on  each  of  the  following  areas:  nuclear  safety/radiation
protection, research and development, administration, staff?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 1997)

Since 1970 the Euratom budget has been completely merged with the Community budget. There is therefore no
separate budget for Euratom and hence no Irish contribution to the Euratom budget as such.

Ireland’s  percentage  contribution  to  the  general  budget  therefore  gives  a  good  idea  of  its  contribution  to  the
activities of the budget connected with the Euratom treaty. In 1996, Ireland contributed 0.96% to the financing of
the general budget.

Commitments for nuclear-related programmes as shown in the revenue and expenditure account of the general
budget for 1996 (1) were as follows:

(cid:150)  B4-20 › Euratom nuclear safeguards: ECU 19 million;

(cid:150)  B4-1020 › Transport of radioactive material in the European Union (EC/ECSC): ECU 2 million;

(cid:150)  B4-307 › Nuclear safety and radiation protection: ECU 2.9 million;

(cid:150)  B6-1 and B6-3: Nuclear research carried out by the Joint Research Centre: ECU 74 million;

(cid:150)  B6-8: Nuclear research › Indirect action by the EAEC programme: ECU 267 million.

(1)  SEC(97) 399.

(98/C 45/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/97

by Ulla Sandb(cid:230)k (I-EDN) to the Commission

(23 May 1997)

Subject: European Union beef dumping in South Africa

Between 1993 and 1995 the volume of beef exported to South Africa from the EU increased from 7 200 tonnes to
53 300 tonnes. For each kilo of frozen beef exported the European taxpayer is charged about ECU 1.20 (until
January 97 ECU 1.60), so it can be landed in South Africa at ECU 0.52 (frozen boneless beef), which is 51%
below the domestic wholesale price in South Africa (1996 average). Beef production in South Africa fell by one
third between 1993 and 1996 and farmers are estimated to have lost up to 40% of their incomes from livestock
sold between the first half of 1995 and 1996. Neighbouring African countries, like Namibia, which traditionally
supply South Africa with beef, are also affected. In March 1997 two resolutions were adopted by the ACP-EU
Joint Assembly on the subject (ACP-EU 2091/97 and 2135/97). Both called on the Commission and the Council
to end export refunds for beef exports to South Africa and Lesotho, on the grounds that these countries are in fact
members of the SACU (Southern African Customs Union), which is a net exporter of beef.

On what grounds does the Commission classify South Africa as a net importer of beef, when it is a member

1.
of a de facto free trade area, SACU, which, taken as a whole, is exporting beef?