WRITTEN QUESTION No. 143/99 by Brigitte LANGENHAGEN EU aid to Osterholz-Scharmbeck
Date: 1999-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, LANGENHAGEN
Subjects: EU aid, European Union, Germany, aid recipient

C 370/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.12.1999

of destination indicated (cid:11) once the cereals have been transferred from intervention stores (cid:11) are Muuga in
Estonia and Klaipeda in Lithuania, from where the cereals are to be transported to various destinations in
Russia. As the Commission’s powers of supervision extend only to EU territory, it seems poor planning for
the Commission not to have chosen as the port of unloading Kotka or Lovisa, both of which are in the
Gulf of Finland, within EU territory, and located at much the same distance from the ultimate places of
processing. Goods have been carried to Russia from these ports both by sea and by rail. This would have
enabled monitoring and inspection of the transport of food aid to Russia to extend considerably further
than will be the case if the port of Muuga or Klaipeda is used.

How will the Commission ensure that food aid to Russia does not distort normal trade in food, and how
will the Commission monitor the correct delivery of food aid as far as possible along the route?

(1) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1999)

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the reply given to Written Question E-3957/98 by
Mrs Matikainen-Kallström (1) on the safe delivery of food aid to Russia.

If, at any stage, the Commission is not satisfied that the terms of Council Regulation (EC) 2802/98 of
17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (2) or of the
memorandum of understanding (MoU) of 20 January 1999 with the government of the Russian Federation
are being respected, the food supply programme will be suspended. In fact in accordance with paragraph
3.12, the MoU has been clarified as regards its operational aspects and a Community-Russian working
group has been set up to discuss weekly the progress of the programme and any problems.

In order to ensure that the Community food aid does not distort normal trade in food, the MoU provides
that the products will be sold at local market prices apart from exceptional cases where some food may be
given free of charge to the most vulnerable groups in eligible regions. In addition, the government of the
Russian Federation has undertaken to prevent the re-export of any of the commodities received and is also
suspending its own exports of meat and grain.

The Commission has selected specialised firms to monitor the shipments from their collection from the
intervention stores in the Community until they reach the local markets in the eligible regions in Russia.
The memorandum of understanding spells out the exact quantities of each product to be delivered to the
eligible regions. The regions of Moscow and St Petersbourg are not eligible.

The Honourable Member is also referred to the Commission’s replies to Written Question P-269/99 by
Mr Hager (3) and to Oral Question H-130/99 by Mr Giansily during question time at Parliament’s March
1999 part-session (4).

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 150.
(2) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.
(3)
(4) Debates of the Parliament (March 1999).

See page 28.

(1999/C 370/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0143/99

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: EU aid to Osterholz-Scharmbeck

During the 1994-1999 parliamentary term, what European Union grants, broken down by aid area, and
for what amounts, were made to Osterholz-Scharmbeck?