WRITTEN QUESTION E-3680/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European milk production.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural quota, common agricultural policy, dairy production

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/191

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The proposal made by the Commission at this Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) to extend the scope of
Article 133 is intended to ensure that the Community can effectively defend common interests in
international trade negotiations.

Although the Commission already acts as negotiator in all World Trade Organisation (WTO) areas, the
option of taking decisions by a majority vote is essential for an effective trade policy. It is also consistent
with the general approach taken by the Commission and the Parliament that qualified majority should be
the rule and unanimity the exception.

Democratic accountability is ensured through the role of the governments in the Council, themselves
accountable to their national parliaments, in adopting negotiation directives and concluding international
trade agreements. However, the Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that this needs to be
complemented by parliamentary control at the European level. It has therefore proposed to enhance the
role of the European Parliament substantially in all aspects of trade policy. This would not only increase
the accountability of trade policy, but also its efficiency because our trading partners would know that the
Commission negotiates with the full backing of the democratically elected representatives of European
citizens.

Already within the current legal framework, the Commission is firmly committed to enhancing transpar-
ency and public access in the trade policy debate. This applies first and foremost to the relations between
the Commission and the Parliament.

trade and his senior officials participate regularly in parliamentary
The Commissioner for External
discussions on the whole range of trade policy issues. The Commission is also engaged in a regular
dialogue with organisations of civil society on issues relating to the WTO agenda.

As regards the 133 Committee the Honourable Member refers to, this is a sub-group of the Council whose
role it is to advise the Commission in the conduct of negotiations. On the specific question of access to
Article 133 documents, the Commission would like to point out that making available the official
documents of the 133 Committee does not lie within its responsibilities as those documents are produced
by the Council Secretariat. Concerning documents transmitted by the Commission to the 133 Committee,
the Commission wrote to the President of the Industry, external trade, research and energy committee on
20 January 2000, agreeing to transmit to the Parliament significant documents sent by the Commission to
the 133 committee, as well as other important reports established by the Commission. Documents of a
more sensitive nature are transmitted as (cid:145)confidential(cid:146) or (cid:145)restricted(cid:146) documents. A large number of
documents are, however, distributed as public documents and these are posted on the Directorate General
Trade website.

Public documents include the near totality of Community submissions to the WTO, as well as discussion
papers concerning the Community New Round strategy.

it is worth noting that the Community has also been in the lead in arguing for a policy of

Finally,
improving public access to WTO documents.

(2001/C 163 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3680/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: European milk production

Now that we are six months into the 2000/2001 milk year, could the Commission give details of the
figures which the different Member States have been supplying and the corresponding year-end projec-
tions?

C 163 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Could the Commission indicate the likely extent of overrun for each Member State, bearing in mind the
portions of the new allocations for some Member States to be accounted for by the current year?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

Firstly, as the Honourable Member knows, Member States must notify official data on quotas to the
Commission by 1 September each year following the end of the reference period (April-March) using the
questionnaire annexed to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed
rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (1), as stipulated in the fourth
indent of Article 8 of that Regulation. The data for the 2000/2001 reference period will therefore not be
known until after that date. The questionnaire constitutes the basis for payment of the additional levy.

However, it is standard practice for each Member State to provide the Commission with an estimate of the
trend in deliveries to the industry. The Commission currently has Member States(cid:146) estimates in respect
of April-October 2000 (except that those for Greece, Italy and Portugal run only to August 2000 and
those for Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, Finland and Sweden run only to September 2000). The estimates
show some Member States (Denmark, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden) to be in excess of their
estimated profile for the period.

It should be borne in mind that the transfers provided for in Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (2),
which include transfers between delivery quotas and direct sales as well as temporary transfers between
producers, may cause the excess to increase or decrease depending on the circumstances.

In view of the above, the available data provide only a partial overview of excess quantities: there are no
estimates for a major part of the reference period (October 2000-March 2001) and each Member State
may depart significantly from the trend which it has followed up to now.

(1) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993.
(2) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.

(2001/C 163 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and out-turn of the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the ERDF to each of the EU(cid:146)s

1.
Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the out-turn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999
programming period?

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted under the FIFG to each of the EU(cid:146)s

2.
Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period?

Can it say what was the out-turn of those amounts in each Objective 1 region during the 1994-1999
programming period?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.