WRITTEN QUESTION E-0848/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Council. Action of the European Union against landmines.
Date: 2000-03-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession negotiations, anti-personnel weapon, common foreign and security policy

C 46 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

With a view to safeguarding the cultural and economic wealth of the countryside and the production of
natural spirit in the Community, which makes up only 0,1 % of the alcohol consumed, and to avoid any
discrimination between producers and any distortion of competition in the single market, does the
Commission not think that there are grounds for promoting a certain harmonisation of
legislation
concerning producers?

What are the options that the Commission can envisage under the rural development policy to support
actions to conserve orchard and old fruit varieties harvested to produce fruit juice and jam and to distil
fruit fermented in the cask?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The Commission is aware that there are no common rules governing the production of alcohol, including
the production of spirits by small producers. Over the past thirty years the Commission has put forward a
number of proposals for the common organisation of the market in alcohol of agricultural origin. The
Council, however, has failed to reach agreement because the Member States wanted to retain their own
arrangements. As these arrangements now no longer apply or are under serious review, the sector itself
and several Member States have expressed an interest in establishing a framework of common rules
covering alcohol. The Commission is at present discussing with national experts the need for such a
framework within which competition aspects could be addressed. On the question of tax, Council Directive
92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and
alcoholic beverages (1) harmonises the rules on excise duties and provides in Article 22 that Member States
may apply reduced rates of excise duty to ethyl alcohol produced by small distilleries. The practical
arrangements for applying this measure are the responsibility of the Member States.

Under the rural development policy, whose legal basis is Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May
1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2), Member States may put forward programmes
granting support for a number of agricultural activities and their redevelopment. Among the various
measures that can be used to conserve the types of farming and production referred to by the Honourable
Member, a special role could be played by the agro-environmental measures. These provide support for
agricultural production methods aimed at protecting the environment and safeguarding the countryside. As
stated in Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed
rules for the application of the above Council Regulation (3), support may include commitments for
preserving plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat
of genetic erosion. These could include in particular measures to conserve old fruit-bearing tree and plant
varieties and long-established orchards.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(3) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.

(2001/C 46 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0848/00

by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Council

(20 March 2000)

Subject: Action of the European Union against landmines

The European Union has spearheaded the campaign against anti-personnel landmines by adopting two
joint actions (1995 and 1997). Parliament, too, has resolutely taken up this fight by devoting thereto
several resolutions and a public hearing back in 1995.

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/61

Now that all of the Member States (excepting Finland) have signed the Ottawa Convention, and that
Council and Parliament are due to take a position on the proposed regulation adopted by the Commission,
the European Union must reaffirm its commitment to an actual implementation of this Convention and its
universalisation.

How might the 1997 joint action be assessed? What is the Council(cid:146)s position as to this joint action

1.
being reappraised as a political signal of the Union(cid:146)s commitment?

Regarding the adaptation of national legislation, what is the state of play on the actual implementa-
2.
tion of the Convention(cid:146)s provisions in the Member States? Have the reports required of the Member States
been drawn up? Have they been made public?

How large has been the place given to anti-personnel mines in the political dialogue with the Union(cid:146)s
3.
partners and in particular with the countries applying for accession (of which five are not signatories to
the Convention?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

On the eve of the Ottawa Conference in 1997, the European Union adopted a new Joint Action on
1.
Anti-Personnel Landmines (APLs),
in which the Union reiterated its commitment to the goal of total
elimination of APLs world-wide. The Union therefore welcomed the opening for signature in Ottawa of the
Convention and the efforts made by its signatories to promote universal accession to the Convention.

On the occasion of the First Conference of the States Parties to the Ottawa Conference (3-7 May 1999),
the Union called upon all States to work together to achieve the total elimination of APLs world-wide. The
Associated Countries, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Cyprus (not Poland) concurred with this statement. In order to encourage full and speedy
implementation of the Convention, the Union made a number of dØmarches that demonstrated its wide
support for the aims of the Convention. In that spirit the EU Member States also undertook in the Joint
Action to participate actively in any conferences organised after the signature of the Convention and to
seek to encourage, in all appropriate fora, any efforts likely to help to achieve the objectives of the Joint
Action.

The Joint Action sets out the framework for specific action by the EU and its financial contribution
2.
to demining activities. In 1993-1997, the Union contributed USD 140 million to demining activities and
assistance to victims. That amount does not include individual contributions by the EU Member States. In
1998, total funding by the European Community and Member States amounted to approximately USD 95
million. This makes the EU the world(cid:146)s premier donor in the field.

On 28 November 1997 the Council of the European Union adopted a Decision on the implementation of
Joint Action 96/588/CFSP of 1 October 1996 on APL with a view to contributing to the funding of certain
programmes of the SADC (ECU 2,07 million), the ICRC Mine Awareness Programme in the former
Yugoslavia and the programme for the rehabilitation of victims disabled by mines in Iraq (ECU 1,43
million). On the same day the Council adopted a decision on the implementation of Joint Action 96/588/
CFSP on APL with a view to co-financing the special appeals from the ICRC (maximum contribution of
ECU 8 million).

3.
In its statement to the First Conference of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, the Union noted
that all States Parties have undertaken never to use APLs under any circumstances. The EU also expects all
signatory States fully to abide by the objectives, aims and spirit of the Ottawa Convention. While guided
first and foremost by humanitarian concerns, the EU will focus its efforts on States Parties and on
signatories that fully observe in practice the principles and objectives laid down in the Convention. Recent
civilian victims of mine-laying highlight
the importance of abolishing this deadly weapon and the
pertinence of the objectives set out in the EU Joint Action: the total elimination of APLs and assistance
in solving the problems already caused by these weapons. As the objectives of the Joint Action remain
valid, the Union is not considering updating it.

C 46 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

At the First meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts (SCE) on the General Status and
4.
Operation of the Ottawa Convention, which was held on 10 and 11 January 2000, a positive assessment
was made of the growing universalisation of the Convention with 137 countries that have signed or
acceded to the Convention and 90 ratifications. It was reported that 31 states had already submitted
reports on their implementation of the Convention to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
(Article 7 of the Convention) and that 34 states were late in submitting their reports. South Africa and
Canada, as co-chairs of the SCE, reported to the meeting that they had approached the States in question
with a view to encouraging them to take all necessary steps to demonstrate their continued strong support
for the ban on APLs. Although the Convention does not require the publication of reports, the Ottawa
Convention stipulates in Article 7 that the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit all the
reports received to the States Parties, who will then consider matters arising from the reports at the
Meeting of the States Parties. The reports are also available on the website of the United Nations
Department for Disarmament Affairs:

http://domino.un.org/ottawa.nsf.

5.
The European Union welcomes the efforts made by the signatory States to encourage universal
accession to the Ottawa Convention and has raised the issue of its implementation during meetings in the
context of the political dialogue on global disarmament and arms control with all the associated countries,
the EFTA countries which are members of the European Economic Area, Canada and the United States,
and with other countries (Australia) or regional groups (SADC).

With regard to the negotiations for the accession to the European Union, the applicant countries are
expected to comply fully with the acquis, including Common Positions and Joint Actions adopted in the
framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

(2001/C 46 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Mozambique

It is now many days since disaster struck Mozambique. A million people are suffering the effects of the
extremely serious flooding caused by heavy rains: some have died, others are missing and damage to
property is widespread. However, neither the European Union nor its Member States have taken the action
which is so urgently required in order to lessen the damage caused, to care for the sick, to feed the hungry
and to prevent further loss of human life.

What is the reason for the EU(cid:146)s negligence and what action is the Commission to take in order to correct
without delay the unacceptable behaviour which it has displayed in Mozambique and in other countries?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

From the very outset of the crisis in Mozambique, the Commission and Member States have given the
government their support, both in cash and in kind. Each and every Member State has given generously to
the government of Mozambique(cid:146)s initial appeal, providing food aid, helicopters and transport planes,
personnel, medicines, drinking water, tents and blankets, as well as funding via the United Nations (UN)
such as the World food programme. The donor tracking system of the United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) confirms that the Community has provided the lion(cid:146)s
share of the international community(cid:146)s response to the Mozambique crisis, estimated at some € 120
million in the initial rescue and relief phases alone.