WRITTEN QUESTION P-1874/00 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission. European food aid to Russia.
Date: 2000-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Russia, aid evaluation, food aid, swine

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/139

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

At the moment there are no Community regulations covering the practice of body piercing as such.
However, European Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EEC of 30 June 1994 amending for the
twelfth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
substances and preparations (1), which recently entered into force, prohibits the use of nickel for body
piercing. This is important, as 15 % of women in the Community are now sensitised to nickel, and this is
partly attributed to its use in body piercing.

The Commission does not know of any specific regulations applied by Member States in this field. It will
carry out a survey on this subject among the Member States in order to establish whether Community
inform the
initiatives in this field are justified and necessary, and what form they could take. It will
Honourable Member of the results of this survey.

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994.

(2001/C 72 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1874/00

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: European food aid to Russia

Has the Commission taken note of the report entitled (cid:145)Russians blame EU for pigs(cid:146) deaths(cid:146) in NRC

1.
Handelsblad on 27 May 2000?

2.
The report asserts that earlier this year, because French and German meat was being stored in the
slaughterhouse at Jaroslavl, there was no storage capacity for pigs from local pig farmers, causing the
deaths of thousands of Russian pigs. Is that assertion correct?

3.
Does the Commission agree with its acting delegate in Moscow that the European aid package, worth
US$ 500 million, has not disrupted the Russian market? If so, does it have figures to back up that
proposition?

On what information is the acting delegate(cid:146)s statement that EU food aid to Russia (cid:145)has saved

4.
thousands of babushkas(cid:146) lives(cid:146) based?

Does the Commission agree with a Dutch meat trader in Russia that EU food aid is putting pressure

5.
on prices in Russia and that the European Union and the US are rumoured to be dumping surpluses?

Is the Commission prepared to open an investigation into the impact of EU food aid on the pig

6.
market in Russia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission does not accept the criticism reported in the NRC Handelsblad to which the Honourable
Member refers.

The food delivery programme was adopted by the Council
in December 1998, after considering the
request of the Russian government for assistance. Because of the poor harvest and financial crisis of 1998,
the Russian government feared that there would be food shortages and speculative price rises in many
Russian regions through the winter of 1998 and spring of 1999. To avoid this it was necessary to import
a substantial quantity of food.

C 72 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

The products supplied were delivered to over 50 of the 89 regions of the Russian Federation and both the
Community and American food delivery programmes (total quantity of about 5 million tonnes) had a
significant impact in bridging the food needs deficit. As a consequence, prices for most food products rose
gradually, rather than sharply as had been feared.

Before this crisis, around 85 % of Community food exports to the Federation (mainly beef and pork) went
to Moscow and St Petersburg and the regions surrounding the two cities. These areas were specifically
excluded from the Community food programme to avoid disruption to traditional export markets.

The proceeds from the sale of the food are being used for pension fund (80 %) and other priority social
purposes (20 %). As a result the pension fund was able to clear arrears in full thus providing valuable
income to those most in need. The total proceeds to be generated from sales will be about 7 400 million
roubles (€ 274 million) and it is generally acknowledged that this income has been properly targeted to
ensure that the less fortunate have benefited.

The quantity of pork allocated to Yaroslavl under the Community programme was 5 000 tonnes, but the
actual quantity delivered was only 2 413 tonnes. In fact, three of the four regional processing plants went
bankrupt before delivery of Community pork, which demonstrates that the local industry was already in
serious difficulty. Responsibility for discharge,
internal transport, distribution and storage was the sole
responsibility of the Russian authorities. However, the loss of three regional processing plants is likely to
have been the main cause of any disruption in the market, rather than the presence of Community product
in the cold stores. In relation to storage, the Commission considers that the percentage of total capacity
utilised (private and state controlled) for the Community programme was negligible.

Under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 on a programme to
supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (1), the programme is being independently evaluated.
The interim report of the evaluators has already been presented to the Council and a copy is sent direct to
the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat. The final report will be completed in the near
future.

(1) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1881/00

by Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Price of fuel in Spain

There have been six consecutive rises in fuel prices in Spain in the space of a month. The latest rise is all
the more surprising when we see that all the major oil companies operating in the sector are maintaining
prices which, as the Commissioner Mrs Loyola de Palacio has pointed out, (cid:145)amazingly(cid:146) coincide.

Leaving this (cid:145)coincidence(cid:146) aside, what steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in this
context? Does it believe that competition in this sector is being distorted?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2000)

The fact that the major oil companies operating in the Spanish market are charging similar retail prices
does not, in itself, necessarily mean that distributors have formed cartels or that competition is being
distorted. It is true, as the Honourable Member points out, that parallel pricing could be the result of
concerted practices or agreements between operators with the object or effect of distorting competition.