WRITTEN QUESTION P-3796/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Blackmail of Community exporters.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: customs document, customs formalities, customs inspection, export (EU)

C 235 E/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

The regulatory energy tax in the Netherlands includes a zero tax rate for renewable electricity. This
2.
measure was approved by the Commission for the period up to 1 January 2003 (2). The Netherlands
increased the general tax rates within this energy tax as of 1 January 2000. This increase made a new
assessment of the measure under the state aid rules by the Commission necessary. At the moment, the
Commission is assessing the case and thus a decision on this point is still pending.

3.
The cost-price of wind power is subject to numerous factors, including offer and demand on the
electricity market, the efficiency of the wind-power technology employed as well as the application of
support schemes in favour of wind power. Furthermore, the state aid rules of the Treaty in principle do
not prohibit the use of fiscal instruments to support electricity produced from renewable energy sources.
Furthermore, the Commission on 29 November 2000 adopted a Green Paper that outlines a long-term
European strategy for the security of energy supplies (3). This Green Paper finds that the Community must
rebalance its supply policy by clear actions in favour of a demand policy. With regard to demand, the
Green Paper is consequently calling for a real change in consumer behaviour. It thus highlights the value
of taxation measures to steer demand towards better-controlled consumption that is more respectful of the
environment.

4. and 5.
As mentioned above, the Commission is pursuing a policy in favour of increasing the market
share of electricity from renewable energy sources. The Commission believes that such a policy will lead to
a fall in prices for this type of electricity and will thus make it affordable for a wide range of consumers. In
this context, the Commission adopted on 21 December 2000 new Guidelines on State aid for environ-
mental protection (4). These guidelines authorise Member States to grant investment and operating aid to
renewable energies, under very flexible conditions.

(1) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000.
(2) OJ C 244, 4.8.1998.
(3) COM(2000) 769 final.
(4) OJ C 37, 3.2.2001.

(2001/C 235 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3796/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Blackmail of Community exporters

Further to the Commission(cid:146)s answer to my Question No E-2793/00 (1), in which the Commission points
out that exporters can apparently confidently use an unloading and import certificate issued by a control
agency as primary documentation for approval of import documents, will the Commission say:

(cid:129) on what grounds it published a notice in Official Journal C 295 of 18 October 2000 in connection
with the publication of the list at 1 September 2000 of international control and supervisory agencies?

(cid:129) can that notice be interpreted as meaning that other Commission departments have begun to doubt

the reliability of these reports?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 97.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

The unloading and import certificates made out by control and supervisory agents form part of the
primary evidence of arrival at destination.

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/21

the Commission
transparency and to keep Community exporters duly informed,
For the sake of
periodically publishes an updated list of control agents approved by the Member States in the C series of
the Official Journal. The warning which accompanies the list published in Official Journal C 295 of
18 October 2000 features nothing new; it is the same warning which appeared when the list was first
published.

The purpose of this warning is simply to remind exporters of the precautions to be taken with regard to
documents issued by the control and supervisory agents.

(2001/C 235 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3801/00

by Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Longline fishing

What action is currently being taken or is being considered to counter the threat caused to seabirds by
longline fishing?

Will the Commission consider calling on the relevant organisations and authorities to introduce measures
to mitigate the danger, including:

1.

using bird-scaring line with plastic streamers attached,

2. weighting the lines so that they sink faster and pose less risk,

3. prohibiting the discharge of offal at sea, which attracts seabirds to the lines,

4.

setting the longlines at night when albatross and other seabirds are less likely to be foraging?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Community is well aware of the incidental catches of seabirds in longline fisheries and has therefore
actively participated in the preparation of the Food and agriculture organisation (FAO) International plan
of action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds. This plan foresees the presentation of voluntary national
plan of action to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries where this occurs.

The Community has the intention to present a Community plan of action to the next FAO fisheries
committee (COFI) at the end of February 2001. This plan of action will recall the commitment of the
Community towards the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (CCAMLR) conservation and
control measures that have been incorporated into Council Regulation (EC) No 66/98 of 18 December
1997 laying down certain conservation and control measures applicable to fishing activities in the
Antarctic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2113/96 (1). Those CCAMLR mitigation measures include the
one quoted in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question and are already implemented.

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1998.