WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Union enlargement to include countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Date: 2000-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, accession to the European Union, enlargement of the Union, impact study, trade volume, trading operation

C 136 E/176

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, the Commission wished to reorganise the Joint Service for
External Relations and the Directorate-General for Development simultaneously. Both Director-General
posts were,
the same time and with the same deadline for submission of
applications (11 July).

therefore, published at

After completion of the selection procedure stipulated for senior posts, the Commission decided at its
meeting of 26 July 2000 to appoint Mr Bonacci as Director-General of the Joint Service for External
Relations. At that stage, however, no decision was taken in relation to the Director-General for Develop-
ment.

The latter appointment was discussed by the Commission at its meeting on 13 September. The College
decided not to fill the vacancy of Director-General for Development but, whilst retaining the applications
submitted under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations, to proceed with the simultaneous publication of
the post both inter-institutionally (Article 29(1)(c)) and externally (Article 29(2)). In order to ensure that
the demands of this post are fully met, the Commission wishes to give as many potentially qualified people
as possible the opportunity to apply, before taking a final decision. This additional step is fully in line with
the Commission(cid:146)s code of conduct for senior appointments adopted last December.

Responses to the publication of the post have now been returned. The Commission will, therefore, proceed
with the next stages of the appointment process without delay.

(2001/C 136 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Union enlargement to include countries of Central and Eastern Europe

The Committee on Industry, in its report on the implications of Union enlargement (PE 286 105), draws
attention to the fact that (cid:145)the Commission has not presented to Parliament any quantitative assessment of
the potential impact of the enlargement on(cid:146)trade creation(cid:145)and(cid:146)trade diversion(cid:145)(cid:146).

Are there any scientific surveys available to the Commission relating to the impact of enlargement on trade
creation and diversion?

If so, what practical conclusions can be drawn from them?

How does the Commission assess such conclusions?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

Since the overall assessment made by Agenda 2000 and the impact study looking at the effects that the
accession of the Central and East European countries will have on certain Community policies, the
Commission has ordered or is currently carrying out various comprehensive studies on the implications
of enlargement.

The Community, which is now by far the most important partner of the 13 candidate countries, saw the
total value of its trade increase almost threefold between 1993 and 1999. The surplus from trade with the
13 candidate countries (€ 25 800 million) to a large extent offsets the Community(cid:146)s overall deficit.

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/177

But enlargement must not only be measured in terms of growth in trade: the benefits of extending the
internal market to more countries must also be assessed in terms of the simplification and standardisation
of rules and procedures, competitive practices and intellectual property.

The Commission has not conducted any specific survey of the impact on trade, (cid:145)trade creation(cid:146) or (cid:145)trade
diversion(cid:146). Some of the comprehensive studies that have been carried out relate partly to trade. (1)

(1)

(cid:145)L(cid:146)impact de l(cid:146)Ølargissement (cid:224) l(cid:146)est sur l(cid:146)emploi et les salaires dans les Etats membres de l(cid:146)Union(cid:146), Boeri, Br(cid:252)ckner
et al, Berlin, 215 p., March 2000; (cid:145)The impact of enlargement on small and medium sized enterprises in the EU(cid:146),
RWI, Essen, EPRC Glasgow 216 p., October 2000.

(2001/C 136 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3084/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Assessment of MAP IV

The current fisheries guidance programme (MAP IV) clearly has done little hitherto to reduce overcapacity;
indeed, fisheries activity has if anything intensified in some areas.

Since sustainable fisheries are a matter of fundamental public interest, the Commission is asked:

1. How does the Commission assess MAP IV(cid:146)s successes hitherto?

2. Can it provide figures in support of its assessment?

3. To what extent do figures derived from the assessment made hitherto impact on future allocations of

Structural Fund appropriations?

4. What approaches is the Commission adopting to ensuring MAP IV(cid:146)s eventual success?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

The Commission(cid:146)s assessment of the current Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV) was outlined
in a recent report (1).

1.
The Commission considers that the MAGP(cid:146)s have not succeeded in reducing fleet capacity to bring it
into line with the available resources. However, the programmes have been largely effective in preventing
an increase in capacity.

2.
The MAGP III (1992-1996) is acknowledged as representing a significant step in the right direction
by requiring an overall reduction in capacity of about 10 % for the European fleet. The MAGP IV (1997-
2001) is less ambitious, however, calling for an overall reduction in fishing effort of 5 %. This contrasts
with the conclusion of the (cid:145)Lassen(cid:146) report, named after the chairman of the independent group of experts
set up to advise the Commission before the start of the MAGP IV, that fishing effort is currently on
average about 40 % too high in European waters. A report of the scientific, technical and economic
committee for fisheries, issued in May 2000, endorsed this view. In terms of capacity the MAGP IV calls
for a reduction of just 3 % in 5 years. The remaining 2 % reduction in fishing effort is to be achieved by
reducing activity.

This assessment of

3.
the MAGP will have no immediate influence on the
distribution of structural fund credits. However, this does not preclude an adjustment of the credits to
reflect changes in the fleet policy in the future.

the performance of