WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Reform of the support system in the rice sector.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, amendment of a law, common organisation of markets, market support, rice

C 113 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

(2001/C 113 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2740/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 August 2000)

Subject: Cost of the changeover to the euro

1.
Has the Council made any estimation of the cost of joining the single currency to the 11 countries
which are currently part of the eurozone and the expected costs to Greece when it joins in 2001? Could
the Council provide a breakdown of these figures?

Has the Council make any estimation of the cost of joining the euro to Denmark, Sweden and the

2.
United Kingdom, if these countries expressed a wish to join?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

No estimates concerning the costs related to the introduction of the euro, which are borne partly by the
public and partly by the private sector, have been drawn up by the Council.

It should, however, be borne in mind that these costs are incurred only once, while there are important
long term advantages both for the private and public sector due to the once and for all suppression of
exchange related costs between the Member States adopting the euro.

(2001/C 113 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Reform of the support system in the rice sector

The Commission has submitted a reform proposal to amend the rules governing the system of support for
growers of seeds, including rice.

Italy is Europe(cid:146)s leading rice producer and is therefore extremely interested in the changes involved in this
reform.

The reform could create difficulties for Italy by cutting back production and thus creating unemployment
in the sector, since there are plans to reduce the surface area cultivated by 10 %, to abolish withdrawal of
unsold produce in favour of a premium per hectare cultivated and to replace intervention prices with the
possible introduction of a new tariff for imports enjoying special terms.

Given that abandoning rice production would lead to unemployment, adverse effects on related industries
and, in particular an environmental disaster (unless the waters are controlled, marshes and flooding will
return) and bearing in mind that price intervention to introduce new tariffs has been rejected by the
United States with a possible complaint to the WTO pending:

The Commission:

1. Will it say what progress has been made with the reform process?

2. What is the situation in the other Member States?

3. Will it explain what form a future complaint to the WTO by the United States might take?

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/163

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

After closely examining all the possible options, the Commission has concluded that integrating the rice
sector into the arable crop system and abolishing the intervention price will enable a balance to be
achieved between supply and demand while still safeguarding rice growers(cid:146) income.

The proposed changes are expected to make Community rice more competitive and the market more fluid.

As regards environmental impact, the proposed measures are intended to guarantee that rice cultivation
continues in areas where it is important to manage water carefully in order to protect specific environ-
mental features. The 10 % reduction in acreage will be of limited significance, since it does not apply to
small producers.

The proposal on reforming the market organisation was sent to the Council on 7 June 2000. Meetings
with the Council Working Party on arable crops and rice have since been held (during July and September)
in order to examine the proposed measures.

To the Commission(cid:146)s knowledge, the United States has not taken a stance in respect of the Commission
proposal on reforming the market organisation for rice.

(2001/C 113 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2747/00

by Alain Lipietz (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Irregular application of the EC-Israel Agreement

In its May 1998 (1) Communication to the Council and the European Parliament the European Com-
mission stated: (cid:145)Preferential access to Community markets for exports originating in Israeli settlements in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip and those from East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights contravene agreed
rules of origin since these territories do not form part of the State of Israel under public international law.
There are indications that these exports are taking place. The European Community will take steps to
verify the accuracy of this information. Should it be confirmed, such violations of rules should be brought
to an end(cid:146).

Shortly thereafter, Israeli officials confirmed to the European Commission that, as a matter of official
policy, Israeli Customs has been routinely certifying products wholly produced or substantially processed
in Israeli settlements located in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 as originating in the State of
Israel. In January of this year the Commission informed us that (cid:145)over the last two years, the Commission
has taken a number of steps to find a viable solution to this problem, with meetings at official level in
both 1998 and 1999. These extensive efforts to find a solution to this issue have not yet yielded a
satisfactory result.(cid:146)

Prior to taking the decision to put the new Association Agreement with Israel into effect, has the Council
or the Commission obtained assurances from Israel that its customs services will cooperate with the
Member States(cid:146) customs services in ensuring the proper application of that Agreement(cid:146)s Origin Rules
Protocol as governed by its territorial clause? If the Israeli authorities are not prepared to cooperate with
the EC in ensuring the proper application of the aforementioned, is the Council prepared to mandate
measures that do not rely on Israel(cid:146)s cooperation in order to ensure that (cid:145)such violations of rules(cid:146) are
(cid:145)brought to an end(cid:146)?

(1)

(SEC(1998) 695 final).