WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Importation of agricultural products under preferential arrangements from third countries.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural product, import (EU), tariff preference

C 103 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(2001/C 103 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2152/00

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Short-wave antenna in the municipality of Argenta (FE)

(30 June 2000)

According to information received, a large short-wave antenna is about to be built in the municipality of
Argenta, Ferrara, with a view to broadcasting programmes by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The site
earmarked for the antenna, however, is very close to several wetlands internationally renowned for their
natural beauty, such as the Comacchio and Argenta Valleys, which are protected by the Ramsar
Convention. Because of the large size of the installation, it would also be a dangerous obstacle for the
numerous species of migratory birds in the area.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1.

at what stage the project is and what permits and/or authorisations have been issued to date?

2. how it intends to protect the migratory and non-migratory fauna from the risks of collision and from

damage caused by exposure to electromagnetic waves?

3. whether the project has received Community funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The antenna is due to be built in the municipality of Argenta (Ferrara province, Emilia-Romagna

1.
region).

Italy has designated the Valli di Comacchio site as a special protection area under Article 4 of

2.
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1).

Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (2) requires any plan or project likely to have a significant impact on such a site to be
subject to appropriate assessment.

3.

The regional authorities do not intend to submit the project for Community funding.

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

(2001/C 103 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/00

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

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Importation of agricultural products under preferential arrangements from third countries

In his answer of 17 March 2000 to my Written Question E-0314/00 (1) Commissioner Fischler confirmed
that, although the Union is self-sufficient in production of olive oil, it imports very substantial amounts
from third countries at very favourable customs duties.

Will the Commission say precisely what quantities of fruit and vegetables, citrus fruits, tobacco, wine and
cotton are imported under preferential arrangements from third countries, what these arrangements consist
of, what purpose they serve and what countries are concerned?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 120.

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/77

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

Since Community olive oil production may vary by 15-20 % from one year to another, preferential
imports which amount to approximately 2,5 % of average production do not appear excessive (cid:129) as the
Honourable Member seems to be saying.

The preferences granted to third countries for importing the products referred to in the question concern
reductions in, or exemptions from, customs duty ad valorem. For each particularly sensitive product in the
fruit and vegetable sector a system has been maintained whereby a specific duty is charged depending on
the level of imports, in order to prevent products from being imported at low prices likely to unbalance
the internal market. Most of the concessions fall within tariff quotas corresponding to traditional imports
from third countries and are subject to very strict import timetable conditions. In the context of relations
with Mediterranean third countries, the Mediterranean concessions impact study (1) (which the Commission
presented to the Council in 1997) established that these measures (cid:129) which are intended to liberalise
imports (cid:129) do not result in disruption of the Community market. The Commission is sending a copy of the
unpublished corrigendum to the study direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat. It
should be borne in mind that the preferences granted to third countries form part of agreements likewise
containing concessions which those same third countries have granted in favour of Community agricul-
tural exports.

More specifically, the Commission has updated the detailed information which the Honourable Member
requested. There are no preferential imports of tobacco into the Community. Preferential imports of wine
amounted to 1 663 million hectolitre (hl) in 1997, 1 727 million hl in 1998 and 1 633 million hl in 1999.
There are no preferential terms for imports of cotton from third countries, since customs duty is zero
whatever the source. For fruit and citrus fruit the information requested cannot be provided within a
reasonable timescale because obtaining it would entail an official undertaking several weeks(cid:146) full-time
research. However, the Honourable Member will find useful information in the 1997 impact study referred
to above.

(1) COM(97) 477 final.

(2001/C 103 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2167/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Rowdy behaviour by KFOR troops in Skopje

According to FYROM press reports, KFOR troops on leave in Skopje have been causing trouble on the
streets and bars of the city, assaulting passers-by, particularly young women. Most of these incidents are
caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol by the troops on leave. The population of Skopje almost
always suffers as a result of this behaviour, but the KFOR military police takes a very relaxed attitude. This
conduct by KFOR troops is an insult to the hospitality shown by FYROM to the KFOR troops, but above
all damages the image of the peacekeeping effort undertaken at enormous cost by NATO and the EU in
particular, which is involved through broader agreements in FYROM and in the normalisation of the
situation in Kosovo.

How does the Council
intend to protect the reputation of the EU in the FYROM in the face of the
unacceptable conduct of KFOR troops so as not to cast a shadow over the contribution it is making to
peace in the region?