WRITTEN QUESTION E-1703/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Supervisory bodies for organic food.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: extra-EU trade, food inspection, organic product

C 103 E/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The strategy of the first version presented to the Commission for Galicia embraces a whole set of
subpriorities. The following may be mentioned: more thoroughgoing structural
improvements of the
central core formed by dairy and beef cattle farming and its downstream added value chain (milk and beef
industries); support
for diversification in agriculture; development action for the various products
associated with Galicia (veal, wines and fine spirits, potatoes, etc.); more vigorous development of
complementary rural activities (unusual forms of tourism, high identity local products etc.); furtherance
of an authentic forestry sector; reduction of residue levels, improvement of agricultural treatment systems
and forest fire prevention.

These strategic rural development activities part-financed by EAGGF Guidance will be implemented along
with others in the forthcoming regional programme for Galicia.

(2001/C 103 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1672/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers

Further to Ms Schreyer(cid:146)s answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00 (1), will the Commission indicate
the total amount of money paid out in 1999 to which the proportion paid within the 60-day period
refers?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 10.

Supplementary answer
given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

The Honourable Member is informed that an analysis of the time taken for payments included in the
statistics puts the amount of payments made within 60 days or under during the 1999 financial year at
€ 39 238 million.

(2001/C 103 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1703/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Supervisory bodies for organic food

It was a severe setback to Gr(cid:246)na Konsum in Sweden when the EU introduced its regulation making all
production of organic food imported into the EU from third countries subject to an EU-approved
supervisory body. For non-Member States the situation is difficult as their own supervisory authorities
are not approved and organic products from those countries cannot therefore be marketed in the EU as
organic food. Of Gr(cid:246)na Konsum(cid:146)s 150 organic products in the summer of 1999, only eight were produced
in countries with approved supervisory bodies. The EU(cid:146)s procedures for approving supervisory bodies in
non-EU countries are considered to be either too expensive or very bureaucratic. There is now a risk that
organic food will become expensive or disappear from shop shelves. Does the Commission not consider
that there is justifiable cause for concern in this situation? Has the EU granted the international umbrella
organisation IFOAM the right to approve supervisory bodies for organic food?

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/21

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

One of the main objectives of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural
products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), is to create, and to
promote, a market of organic products which is credible for consumers. Only a credible market will permit
a constant development of organic production within the Community and also in third countries which
export to the Community

In this way, major focus is given in this Regulation to the inspection measures, which consist, on the one
hand, of a specific inspection regime within the Community, established by Articles 8, 9, 10 and Annex III.
On the other hand, Article 11 provides for a requirement that products from third countries must have
been produced under inspection requirements which are accepted as equivalent to those applicable within
the Community. These requirements are in line with the Codex Alimentarius guidelines on production and
marketing of organically produced products, and, as indicated above, are necessary to ensure that
consumer confidence in this market is maintained.

The Regulation provides that the assessment of the equivalency and recognition of inspection bodies in
third countries is made either by the Commission on the basis of
information submitted by the
government of the third country (procedure of Article 11(1)) or by the Member States authorities on the
basis of information submitted by the interested importers (procedure of Article 11(6)). The Regulation
however leaves to the Commission and Member States authorities the possibility to take into account
information in the reports established by the International federation of organic agriculture movements
(IFOAM) concerning organic production in certain third countries, when these reports are submitted in the
context of the above mentioned procedures.

The imports from third countries are followed in much detail by the Commission and the Member States.
It appears that all types of organic products are imported into the Community from some 100 third
countries from all parts of the world. The Commission has not the impression that the above mentioned
measures have lead to substantial decreases of imports of organic products from third countries.

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.

(2001/C 103 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1705/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Imports of alcohol into Sweden

Sweden and the Commission are currently negotiating a possible extension to the exemption relating to
imports of alcohol into Sweden.

The temperance movement, IOGT-NTO, in Sweden claims that Article 28(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) in
essence says that the Commission is to report to the Council on the operation of the exemption rules and
submit a proposal for a (cid:145)final system(cid:146). This system must in principle be the same as the arrangements
which are to apply within the EU, i.e. taxation only in the country of origin of the goods. Once the
Council has examined the report and found that the conditions are in place for a changeover to the final
system, the Council must decide unanimously, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting
the European Parliament, on the rules which will apply to the final system. It is also said that the
transitional rules will be extended automatically until the date on which the final system enters into force.
According to IOGT-NTO, the agreement concluded in 1996 (paragraph 3 of Article 1 of Directive 96/99/
EC (2)) states that Sweden is entitled to continue to apply the current restrictions on quantity until 30 June
2000, subject to a review such as that referred to in Article 28(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC.

Does the Council share the IOGT-NTO(cid:146)s interpretation?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 8, 11.1.1997, p. 12.