WRITTEN QUESTION E-1637/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Situation of the dairy sector.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, agricultural quota, common agricultural policy

C 103 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The Commission has funded some research projects on the potential risks of transgenic fish in contained
facilities. This ensures that Europe has the expertise available to address the safety issues. However, further
research is required to ensure that such fish, on a case by case basis, would not have unacceptable impacts
on biodiversity and the environment in general.

Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990, on the deliberate release into the environment of
genetically modified organisms (1) (GMOs) covers both experimental and commercial releases of GMOs
and would include releases of genetically engineered salmon. Applications for such releases require, as a
pre-requisite, a comprehensive assessment of risks to human health and the environment. They are
considered on a case-by-case basis. An authorisation is only granted on the basis that there is no reason
to believe that the release will have an adverse effect on human health or the environment under the
conditions of consent.

There have been no applications yet for commercial releases of genetically modified salmon under
Directive 90/220/EEC and no consents for such have been granted. Similarly, the Commission has received
no summary notifications from Member States with respect
to experimental releases of genetically
modified salmon under the Directive.

if the salmon were destined for human consumption,

In addition,
it would have to undergo prior
authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and the Council of 27 January 1997
concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (2). Again, authorisations will only be granted on the
basis that there is no reason to believe that the release would have an adverse effect on human health or
the environment.

Any action would depend on the detailed analysis of the circumstances in a concrete case.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2001/C 103 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1637/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Situation of the dairy sector

(29 May 2000)

In its reply of 27 march 2000 to my earlier written question E-0549/00 (1), the Commission refers to
certain data and aspects which I would like the Commission to clarify.

Firstly, it is notable that in the case of Greece, the data presented refers to an exceedingly short period
(April to August 1999) which does not allow valid comparisons to be made and conclusions to be drawn.
Could the Commission supply the most recent data available concerning the 1999-2000 milk year, at the
very least concerning November or December 1999? In view of that data, what are the end-of-year
forecasts?

Secondly, regarding the United Kingdom, can the Commission identify the zone(s) responsible for the
overshoot in that country? More specifically, to what extent did Northern Ireland contribute to the excess
production registered in the United Kingdom according to data referring to December 1999?

Finally, and on a different matter, while the deadline for the submission of official data to the Commission
is 1 September following the end of the milk year, it is well known that most Member States provide
regular updates regarding their situation and that by 15 May most countries know the final figures. With
regard to the above, could the Commission supply me with the final delivery data for the 1999-2000 milk
year for the various Member States as and when they submit such data?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 102.

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/19

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Two estimates are currently available for Greece: the first states that deliveries in 1999/2000 will be 16 %
below the quota, the second that they will be 5 % above. While both estimates come from the Ministry of
Agriculture, the information available suggests that the first does not take into account small dairies.
Although the second is therefore more likely, it must also be treated with caution given the answer to the
third part of the question (see below).

Since the Commission does not have information on the regional breakdown of deliveries, it does not
know the details for Northern Ireland.

According to the Member States, actual production can be estimated quite soon after 31 March (the end of
the milk year). However, that estimate does not establish accurately to what extent the quota may have
been exceeded or the amount of the resulting levy. Deliveries have, firstly, to be corrected according to
actual fat content and, secondly, adjusted following the temporary transfer of quotas, reallocation of
unused quotas, etc. Since reallocation is often done in several stages, the final position is not known until
long after 31 March. That is why the dates set for purchasers to submit their statements to the relevant
authorities and for Member States to notify the final figures are 15 May and 31 August respectively. Since
almost all the Member States supply their figures after 20 August, there would be no practical benefit in
passing on those figures as they are received.

(2001/C 103 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1639/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Community aid for restructuring the agricultural and cattle farming sectors

The need to improve agricultural infrastructures in various parts of Galicia (an Objective 1 region) and in
particular in those mainly engaged in cattle farming has led to the development of ambitious plans for
restructuring a number of cooperatives in various neighbouring municipalities.
In this connection,
problems arise which are specific to sectors which are of particularly importance to these regions, such
as the dairy sector.

Can the Commission indicate which aid programmes would be the most suitable for such an initiative
attempting to restructure human resources engaged in a given activity, thus allowing the resulting holdings
to be made viable and at the same time provide an alternative to those surplus to requirements in the said
sector of activity?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

The new Community support framework for Spain(cid:146)s Objective 1 regions is at present under discussion
between the various administrations. Given the advanced state of the negotiations the overall plan of
action and at regional level the programme outlines are already apparent.

It has already been decided that the regional programmes will be integrated, i.e. each will involve all Funds.
The Commission has a first version of the regional programmes sent on 28 April 2000. These are
accordingly still at the early vetting stage.

However, as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section a picture can already be sketched of the priorities for
action foci. These will be restricted to four of the CSF priorities: Priority 1: improving competitiveness and
production structures; Priority 3: environment and water resources; Priority 7: agriculture and rural
development; Priority 9: technical assistance.