WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Reform of the banana sector with reference to the WTO panel.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, Azores, Canary Islands, EU production, Madeira, World Trade Organisation, customs duties, economic consequence, fruit-growing, import (EU), monetary compensatory amount, overseas department (France), overseas territory, tropical fruit

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/133

status. In particular, the proposal by the Lazio regional authorities regarding Objective 2 does not appear
to reflect adequately the development characteristics of the various areas concerned and therefore does not
correspond to the Commission(cid:146)s guidelines to the Member States in this connection.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has it already intervened regarding the definition of eligible areas in Lazio and if so, in what way?

2. Has it expressed itself in favour of the proposal by Lazio regarding the redefinition of Objective status,

and in particular of Objective 2?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

Following the Commission(cid:146)s decision of 1 July 1999 setting, for each Member State, the maximum
population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in 2000-2006, the national authorities were invited to send
the Commission (at the latest by 31 August 1999) their proposed list of eligible areas within their
territory. The Italian authorities sent their proposal on 1 October 1999.

On 11 October 1999, the Italian authorities were informed that their proposal was not acceptable as it did
not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999, which the
areas that satisfy the (cid:145)Community(cid:146) criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of
the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance.

The Commission therefore called on the Italian authorities to draw up a new proposal in compliance with
the Regulation.

As soon as it receives the revised Italian proposal, the Commission will evaluate the eligibility of the Italian
region of Lazio for Objective 2 assistance.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds:

OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Reform of the banana sector with reference to the WTO panel

At the Council meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 15 November the Commission put forward a proposal
for an amendment to the customs arrangements relating to the banana sector. The purpose of the proposal
is to put an end to import quotas and to base the arrangements solely on customs duties with effect from
1 January 2006. This is an attempt to bring the banana regime into line with the WTO rules, in response
to the criticisms expressed by the USA and the multinational companies which export from the (cid:145)dollar
banana(cid:146) area.

Has the Commission carried out any research into the impact which any change in the arrangements
would have on Community producers, particularly in view of the fact that there is to be an automatic shift
to a scheme based solely on customs duties (which could be reduced as a result of the WTO Millennium
Round negotiations)? If such research has been carried out, what were the main findings thereof?

If Community producers suffer any losses, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to
compensate them and to provide support for the sector and its future?

Has the Commission carried out any research into the impact which any change in the arrangements
would have on ACP producers, particularly in view of the fact that there is to be an automatic shift to a
scheme based solely on customs duties?

What action does the Commission intend to propose in terms of cooperation policy and the Community
budget in order to compensate ACP producers for their losses?

C 225 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel decision did not call into question the Community aid scheme
under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 of 9 July 1993 laying down detailed rules for applying
Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from
marketing in the banana sector (1).

The Commission considers that support for Community producers is guaranteed by the current system of
compensatory aid, under which the amount fixed for each marketing year corresponds to the difference
between the flat-rate reference income (which was increased by 5 % in 1998 and up to 8 % from 1999)
and the average prices obtained during the year in which the bananas were marketed. Through providing
full compensation regardless of price trends on the Community market, the system thus ensures that
Community production is sold. The mechanism(cid:146)s effectiveness was confirmed during 1999, when banana
prices on the world market slumped and compensatory aid enabled all Community production to be sold
and producers(cid:146) income to be maintained.

The Commission takes the view that the compensatory aid scheme will absorb the impact, at production
level, of the proposed changes.

The financial statement presented with the Commission proposal estimated that its budgetary impact
would be to increase expenditure by € 77 million and revenue by € 30 million. The budgetary impact of
applying a system based solely on tariffs cannot be quantified at this stage.

African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) producers are already covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 856/
1999 of 22 April 1999 establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of
bananas (2).

The Commission will, in any event, assess whether this support (which has been proposed in the light of
the previous changes to the common market organisation) will be sufficient
to help traditional
ACP suppliers retain their place in the Community market.

(1) OJ L 170, 13.7.1993.
(2) OJ L 108, 27.4.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2437/99

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Right of establishment in the EU for nationals of Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) for

the purposes of business or of providing services as self-employed persons

1.
Has the Commission any knowledge of the number of nationals of Central and Eastern European
countries (CEECs) who have sought permission to establish themselves in the EU in the last two years in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Agreements between the CEE and the EU?

Has the Commission produced any guidance for nationals of Central and Eastern European countries

2.
seeking to establish themselves in accordance with these provisions?

Has the Commission produced any memoranda or advice notes for the national authorities of the

3.
Central and Eastern European countries concerning the right of establishment under these Agreements?

Has the Commission received any complaints from nationals of Central and Eastern European

4.
countries with regard to the exercise of the right of establishment under these Agreements?