WRITTEN QUESTION E-3073/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Aid to agriculture.
Date: 2000-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: GATT, United States, Uruguay Round, aid to agriculture, common commercial policy, international competition

C 136 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

(2001/C 136 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3072/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: EU agencies, foundations and centres

Would the Commission list all EU Agencies, Foundations and Centres, indicating the cities in which they
are located, the number of people employed in each and the funding received by each?

Are the any proposals to establish any new EU organisations? If so, when is a decision on their
establishment likely to be taken?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2000)

The Commission refers to the table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat
containing a list of the existing Community decentralised bodies (agencies, foundations, offices and centres)
with indication of the cities in which they are located, the number of people employed (establishment
table) in each body and the funding from the Community budget (2000 and 2001) for each.

On 27 September 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation to set up a European aviation
safety agency (1). This proposal has been forwarded to the Parliament and Council according to normal
procedures.

Following the Commission(cid:146)s white paper on food safety (2) a proposal
European food authority is programmed for the end of the year 2000.

for a regulation including a

Finally, it should be mentioned that the Commission in its communication on (cid:145)Matching the Commission(cid:146)s
activities with its human resources(cid:146) (3), paragraph 3.3 on Externalisation, has proposed to undertake
feasibility studies and cost/benefit analyses relating to certain areas.

(1) COM(2000) 595.
(2) COM(1999) 719 final.
(3) SEC(2000) 2000.

(2001/C 136 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3073/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Mart(cid:237)nez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Aid to agriculture

The OECD has published a report on agricultural aid granted in 1999, which shows that in the states of
the OECD such aid is on the increase. In addition, the United States has decided to increase aid to
agriculture by USD 15 billion, with direct subsidies and crop insurance.

Overall, this equates to an increase of approximately 700 % in direct support to US agriculture since 1996.

On the basis of the aid granted to the agricultural sector in 1998, 1999 and 2000, US farmers receive
three times more aid than European farmers.

Furthermore,
Member States of the EU.

the US refers frequently to the need to reduce aid to the agricultural sector in the

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/175

What measures has the EU taken to ensure that this serious situation is remedied in the future?

What action does the EU intend to take to monitor the policy and system of aid to the agricultural sector
in the United States?

What is the current situation of the United States with regard to the commitments entered into in the
Uruguay Round?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2000)

The general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) on agriculture sets out different categories of domestic
support. The so-called amber box includes domestic policies with trade-distorting effects. These policies are
expressed by a composite indicator called aggregate measurement of support (AMS) whose base value must
be reduced by 20 % over the 6 years of the implementation period (1995-2001). During the period 1995-
1997, the United States used less than 30 % of their total AMS (in 1997, the American commitment level
on AMS was USD 21,49 bn).

Another category of domestic support, the so-called green box, has no, or minimal, distortive effect on
trade. Measures included in this box are exempt from reduction commitments. As regards the United
States, over the period 1995 to 1997, total American green box expenditure represented 87 % of United
States total domestic support (in 1997, total United States domestic support was USD 58,88 billion). The
two main American green box categories are domestic food aid and decoupled income support, with
respectively around 75 % and 10 % of American total green box expenditure.

The United States make no use of the so-called blue box measures, i.e. direct payments under production
limiting programmes.

Recent decisions on relief programmes and the increasing amounts involved in the loan deficiency
payment system are likely to change the American domestic support completely. The United States must
still notify the World Trade Organisation committee on agriculture the extent as well as the composition
of their domestic support measures for the years 1998 and 1999. Once these notifications are lodged, the
Community will check carefully whether the United States fully comply with the commitments undertaken
in the Uruguay Round.

(2001/C 136 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3080/00

by Francisca Sauquillo PØrez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Subject: Appointments at the Commission

The Commission is redefining its tasks and priorities in the field of external relations and development
cooperation. As part of this process,
it recently appointed the new Director-General of the Common
Service for External Relations. However, it has not yet appointed the Director-General of the Development
DG.

Can the Commission explain the delay in the appointment of a new Director-General for Development,
bearing in mind that the reorganisation of the SCR and of the Development DG should be carried out in
parallel in order to prevent any difficulties in the functioning of two bodies which are required to work
closely together?