WRITTEN QUESTION P-3307/00 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission. European Union sugar regime.
Date: 2000-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: East of England, economic consequence, generalised preferences, sugar, sugar beet

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/129

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the case mentioned. The site mentioned does not appear under the list of
sites of Community importance proposed by Italy.

Based on the information available, the Commission is not in a position to conclude there is a potential
infringement of Community legislation.

Should the Honourable Member be in a position to forward detailed information on the location and the
type of infringement, the Commission will assess it.

(2001/C 151 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3307/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: European Union sugar regime

I have been informed by angry farmers in the East of England that the European Union has proposed a
Regulation that will allow 48 of the least developed countries access to the EU sugar market to the tune of
2,2 million tons per year.

The Region that I represent produces about 70 % of UK sugar, with four major factories in Norfolk and
Suffolk being supplied.

The farmers advise me that the proposed European Union Regulation will have a devastating effect on
sugar beet production in my Region.

Will the European Commission please inform me what their assessment is of the effect of the proposed
Regulation on the sugar beet industry in the East of England?

In particular, please inform me whether you agree with the assessment of Mr Kevin Field, Managing
Director of British Sugar, plc. and Mr Adrian Gill, CBE, President of the National Farmers Union, that the
Regulation will have these effects:

1.

2.

Immediate quota cuts?

Significant job losses?

3. The reduction of UK sugar processing?

4. The loss of one of the few reliable break crops for arable producers?

5. Decreasing the value of current trade concessions to existing ACP procedures?

6. An increase in EU expenditure through the sales to intervention of both beet sugar and ACP sugar?

7. A discriminatory impact on the UK, since much of the European Union(cid:146)s raw sugar refining capacity

is located in this country?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the recent Commission trade proposal for a Council regulation
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff
preferences for the period 1 July 1999 - 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access without
any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries (1).

C 151 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

When drawing up its proposal the Commission recognised that a risk did indeed exist that imports of
sensitive agricultural products such as sugar might increase above traditional
levels with a resulting
disturbance of the market organisations concerned. For this reason, free access is envisaged to be phased
in over a transitional period of three years during which the impact can better be assessed.

In addition, safeguard measures are foreseen which provide for tariff concessions to be temporarily
suspended in cases of fraud, failure to adhere to the rules of origin or huge increases in imports into the
Community. Also the rules of origin and in particular the minimum added-value conditions will provide
further safeguards.

The Commission is furthermore being consistent with its agricultural sector proposal on the common
market organisation to apply in the sugar sector from 1 July 2001 onwards (2) which essentially provides
for a breathing space of two years during which time deeper reforms will be examined on the basis of
studies of
the
Community(cid:146)s agri-food processing industry as a whole.

the common market organisation for sugar in particular and of

the functioning of

The potential undesired side effects underlined by the Honourable Member do indeed present a challenge
to the Community(cid:146)s policy in the sugar sector until now and demonstrate the difficulties in reconciling
conflicting policy objectives. In the final analysis, however, the Commission has taken the view that the
potential benefits from its proposal clearly outweigh the potential costs for the Community when an
overall view is taken. This being said, the Commission will monitor very carefully future developments in
the sugar sector with a view to taking appropriate measures as and when necessary.

(1) COM(2000) 561 final.
(2) COM(2000) 604 final.

(2001/C 151 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3309/00

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Remuneration of the experts assessing the situation in Austria

A group of three experts was set up by one of the EU institutions to assess the possibility of lifting the
sanctions against Austria. The group reported that it would indeed be possible to lift the sanctions. Which
institution remunerated the experts, and how much did they receive?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

The Commission did not pay the experts(cid:146) fee, and the Honourable Member is kindly requested to contact
the Council in this connection.

(2001/C 151 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3310/00

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Illegal building works

The municipality of Villa Castelli (Brindisi, Italy) includes a (cid:145)gravina(cid:146) (natural canal that is a characteristic
feature of the Apulian countryside), which is of outstanding natural beauty.