WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Refusal of a derogation allowing the Turks and Caicos Islands to export small quantities of rice.
Date: 2000-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Turks and Caicos Islands, application of EU law, export licence, rice

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/79

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the European central bank (ECB) press release dated 5 October 2000 entitled
(cid:145)ECB labour relationships and the social dialogue with regard to the ESCB(cid:146) and the related more detailed
document as of the same title and date.

According to Article 249 (ex Article 189) of the EC Treaty Community directives are addressed to Member
States. As far as the employees of the ECB are concerned, the Governing Council of the ECB determines
the conditions of employment by virtue of Article 36.1 of the Statute of the European system of central
banks (ESCB).

(2001/C 174 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Refusal of a derogation allowing the Turks and Caicos Islands to export small quantities of rice

An investment of £ 4 million towards the cost of a rice mill was made in the British Overseas Territory of
Turcs and Caicos Islands under an EU scheme to help Overseas Territories by allowing them to export
high quality milled rice to Europe, but after some pressure from some Member States the limited export
quota for the Turcs and Caicos Islands was reduced to almost nothing, even though the long-grain rice
grown there does not compete with the short-grain rice grown in Southern Europe. Although a derogation
is possible, this has been refused, even though the tiny production levels proposed would fall within the
limits of the derogation.

Could the Commission explain the reasons behind the decision not to allow the derogation, which has put
sixty people out of work and made it more difficult for these small islands to achieve economic self-
sufficiency? Can it indicate whether the refusal to allow a derogation is legal under the terms of the
European Treaties, and, if so, what avenues of appeal are open either to the employer whose investment in
the mill has been made worthless or to the governor of the Turcs and Caicos Islands?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2001)

The Commission would like first of all to point out that, when the enterpreneurs concerned consulted it
well in advance of making their investment, they were told about the risks entailed given the current
situation in the Community rice sector. A Commission report to the Council had already gone into these
issues back in 1993 (1).

On 21 June 2000, the United Kingdom Government requested a derogation from the rules of origin for
rice as laid down in Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas
countries and territories (2).

The purpose of this derogation was to enable the Turks and Caicos Islands to import rice from third
countries (Uruguay, China, Thailand and Vietnam) for processing and subsequent export as a finished
product (milled rice) to the Community, free of customs duty.

Having examined the application in detail and consulted the other Member States via the relevant
committee, on 11 September 2000 the Commission refused to grant the derogation, inter alia because
the Turks and Caicos Islands already have the option of supplying their industry with rice originating in
the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) for export to the Community duty-free under the existing
mixed origin arrangements with those countries.

C 174 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

The Commission would also like to point out that its proposal for a Council Decision to replace Decision
91/482/EEC as from 1 March 2001 (cid:129) adopted on 15 November 2000 (3) (cid:129) provides for the current
arrangements to be improved in due course by introducing a reserve of 10 000 tonnes within the quota of
35 000 tonnes for the least developed OCT, which include the Turks and Caicos Islands.

(1) COM(93) 555 final, 25.11.1993.
(2) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991.
(3) COM(2000) 732 final.

(2001/C 174 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Progress in implementing the operational programme (cid:145)Education and Initial Vocational Training(cid:146)

under the second CSF in Greece

The third evaluation report of the operational programme (cid:145)Education and Initial Vocational Training(cid:146)
(EPEAEK) by (cid:145)European Business Group(cid:146), commissioned by the Ministry of Education, mentions deficient
planning, lack of the statistical data needed for drawing up detailed organisational charts, slow progress in
implementing measures and a lack of coordination between central and regional management.

Could the Commission say whether it agrees with the above report findings? What is its view of EPEAEK(cid:146)s
progress in Greece, given that in the operational programme for the third CSF which has been submitted
for the Commission(cid:146)s approval, the Greek Government is continuing to fund the majority of activities
which were also chosen in the second CSF? What is the final amount of funding for this programme, and
what was the initial amount, i.e. the amount allocated in 1994?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The findings of the third evaluation report of the (cid:145)Education and Initial Vocational Training(cid:146) Operational
Programme under the second Community Support Framework for Greece to which the Honourable
Member refers, should be examined carefully and as a whole.

this programme encountered various difficulties,

In general terms, the Commission would like to underline the strategic and innovative character of the
in
programme. The Commission can confirm that
particular in its starting phase. These shortcomings were mainly due to the innovative and ambitious
nature of the programme for Greece combined with a lack of relevant experience and preparedness at the
Ministry for Education at the beginning of the 1994-1999 programming period. It is true that lack of
statistical data and use of indicators and quantified targets in the area of human resources and soft actions
more generally is a weakness. Implementation of measures was slow, especially in the first two years but
accelerated thereafter. This delay was one of the reasons for the scaling down of the programme at the
mid-term review. Although some cases of poor co-ordination between central and regional management
could be mentioned, this could hardly be cited as one of the weakest points of the programme.

The implementation of the programme took off towards autumn 1998. 100 % of available resources have
now been committed in the Community budget for both the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Payments amount to about 80 % for the ESF and 88 % for the ERDF.
The Commission estimates that all available funds will be taken up by the programme before the final date
for payments, which is 31 December 2001.