WRITTEN QUESTION E-1202/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Crisis in the apple-growing sector.
Date: 2000-04-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Limburg, common agricultural policy, pip fruit, selling at a loss

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/99

Is the Commission of the opinion that an overriding interest has not been demonstrated in this instance
and that there are no plans for compensation?

Does the Commission think that the plan in question should at least be frozen by the Dutch authorities
until an overriding interest has been demonstrated and sufficient compensation is offered for loss of
natural areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2000)

The Commission has not been informed about the project concerned including the construction of tower
blocks in the municipality of Almere in the area beyond the dyke along the IJmeer.

The IJmeer has been designated by the Dutch authorities as a special protection area (SPA) as defined in
the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1).

As an SPA the IJmeer is protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2), in particular by Article 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4). According to
Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC these provisions also apply to SPAs as defined in Directive 79/409/EEC.
The construction of tower blocks near or within an SPA could be a project within the meaning of Article
6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC that is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. In that case the project
has to be subjected to an appropriate assessment of its implications on the IJmeer, especially on the
habitats and the species that are protected by Directive 79/409/EEC. If the conclusion of the assessment is
that there will be negative implications, Article 6(4) applies. The responsibility for applying Article 6(4) lies
primarily with the Member State.

On the basis of the present information, the Commission cannot judge if there is an infringement of
Directive 79/409/EEC or Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore it has sent a letter to the Netherlands asking for
information about the project and its implications under Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC.
The Commission will not take other steps at the moment, since interested parties can initiate legal
proceedings against the municipality of Almere and additionally, the national authorities have legal
instruments in the relevant national legislation to prevent the construction of the tower blocks if necessary.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 53 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1202/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Crisis in the apple-growing sector

Cultivation of Jonagold apples is currently undergoing a crisis. Fruit growers in Limburg have been forced
to sell below cost price. The problem is not confined to growers in the Flemish province of Limburg, but is
apparent in other regions, too.

Is the Commission aware of the crisis in the apple growing sector, with particular regard to

1.
Jonagold? If not, will the Commission seek detailed information on the apple crisis?

2. Will the Commission take action to provide a solution to the apple crisis? If so, what action, and will
it involve structural or emergency measures? If not, why is the Commission unwilling to take action?

C 53 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

Does the Commission advocate a quota policy for the production of apples in the European Union as
3.
a means of providing a structural solution to the crisis in the apple growing sector? If so, when and in
what way will the Commission draw up a quota scheme? If not, why does the Commission reject a quota
policy as a structural solution to the apple crisis, and what alternative approach does it advocate?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

1.
The Commission is also aware that apple prices have generally been lower during the 1999/2000
marketing year than in the previous marketing year. Prices are, however, roughly the same as in the
trend is largely attributable to the relatively high level of
1997/1998 marketing year. This overall
Community production (almost 8,5 million tonnes, i.e. about 10 % more than the average for the last
few marketing years). This figure conceals a degree of variation by Member State, however: for example,
Belgian apple production amounted to almost 550 000 tonnes in 1999, i.e. 30 % more than the average
for the previous marketing years. Against this background, Community production of the Jonagold variety
has likewise reached record levels at over 900 000 tonnes. Producer prices for Belgian apples, and
particularly for the Jonagold variety, are therefore logically lower than usual.

In such circumstances, producers are able to call on several types of financial

2.
instrument under
Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in
fruit and vegetables (1). Producer organisations may decide to implement the intervention arrangements
through market withdrawals, the aim of which is to support prices for products remaining on the market.
Also, the operational funds provide producer organisations with considerable public financial resources
improvements. These measures have been devised to enable
which they can use to make structural
producer organisations, which account for 70 % of fruit and vegetable production in Belgium, to deal with
short-term crises and to take steps that will improve their competitiveness.

This framework therefore provides apple producers with adequate instruments through which to alleviate
the effects of the short-term production crisis. It is not necessary to devise new, special measures. With
more specific regard to the Jonagold variety, which accounts for 50 % of Belgian production,
the
operational funds likewise mean that producers have the financial resources to convert their orchards to
less over-produced varieties.

3.
Nor does the Commission plan to introduce a production quota system for apples. The common
organisation of the market does not provide for this type of measure, which does not appear suited to
crops for which producers cannot readily forecast their final production. Since 1996 the Council has
instead chosen to assist the fruit and vegetable sector by providing producer organisations with structural
support through the operational funds, so that producer organisations which concentrate supply should be
able to manage short-term fluctuations in production more and more effectively.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2001/C 53 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1210/00

by Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Turkish illegal immigrants

The European Council meeting in Helsinki last December declared Turkey to be (cid:145)a candidate State destined
to join the Union(cid:146). For many years, however, Turkey has pursued a policy of not controlling or even
encouraging the illegal migration of Turkish citizens to European countries, which creates problems in
Member States bordering Turkey, particularly Greece which receives large numbers of illegal immigrants,
primarily across its extensive sea borders to the east.