WRITTEN QUESTION E-3978/00 by Willy De Clercq (ELDR) to the Commission. The Everything but weapons initiative in favour of LDCs.
Date: 2000-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural product, developing countries, exemption from customs duties, fraud, generalised preferences, import, least-developed country, originating product, trade policy

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/29

(2001/C 235 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3863/00

by Concepci(cid:243) Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s (cid:145)Everything but arms(cid:146) initiative

(8 December 2000)

The practical measures deriving from the Commission(cid:146)s (cid:145)Everything but arms(cid:146) proposal submitted
in September this year will enable the world(cid:146)s 48 poorest countries to reduce their growing marginalisation
in an increasingly globalised economy.

However, the proposal, welcome as it is, requires the adoption of measures to prevent the transhipment of
merchandise to those countries.

What measures has the Commission adopted or does it intend to adopt in this connection?

(2001/C 235 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3978/00

by Willy De Clercq (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: The (cid:145)Everything but weapons(cid:146) initiative in favour of LDCs

We have noted the Commission proposal for all products, with the exception of weapons, from 48 least-
developed countries (LDCs) to be granted duty-free access to the European market. For some sensitive
products (sugar, rice and bananas) however, the Commission lays down a transition period of three years.

We welcome the humanitarian and political concern underlying that initiative. It puts into effect a previous
European Union commitment to the World Trade Organisation that was reaffirmed at the end of 1999 in
Seattle.

The Commission wishes to implement the proposal by way of a review of Council Regulation 2820/98 (1)
applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences. The procedure followed is based on
Article 133 of the Treaty. That procedure includes no provision for consulting the European Parliament.

In view of the potential impact, both socio-economic and on agricultural production, of the proposed
measure on the abovementioned sensitive products, we wonder if the Commission is not perhaps being
over-ambitious in its planning. Might it not be that the need to monitor the implementation of regulatory
provisions is being underestimated? Would it not therefore be appropriate for the opinions of the Council
of Agriculture Ministers and the European Parliament to be sought?

We have also noted the Commission proposal for renewing the common organisation of the market in
sugar. The procedure used there lays down compulsory consultation of the European Parliament. Should
the Commission initiative in favour of LDCs not also be subject to a procedure commensurate with that
used for the Commission proposal for a new common organisation of the market in sugar?

(1) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998, p. 1.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3863/00 and E-3978/00
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

The Honourable Members are referring to the recent Commission proposal (1) for a Regulation amending
Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised
tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access
without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries (2).

C 235 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

With regard to the possibility of least-developed countries (LDCs) utilising non-LDC products under this
initiative, one should distinguish between fraudulent and non fraudulent ways of doing so.

In order to address the risk of fraud, the Commission has proposed to reinforce the existing anti-fraud
clause. The reinforced clause provides a tool for tackling the risk of fraud by specifying that massive
increases in Community imports of LDC products, beyond the level reflecting prevailing economic
conditions (cid:129) such as normal production and export capacities in LDCs (cid:129) will be regarded as evidence
of fraud.

In other, non fraudulent cases, the current rules of origin, and in particular the minimum value-added
conditions attached to regional cumulation of origin allow trade of LDCs with other developing countries
within the region but also provide that trade benefits will correspond to significant economic activity in
the LDCs.

Similarly, the possibility that LDCs export their domestic production to the Community, while covering
their domestic consumption needs by imports from non LDCs ((cid:145)triangular trade(cid:146)), would not be fraud.
However, this (cid:145)import/export swap(cid:146) is constrained, notably by poor LDCs infrastructures.

As far as procedural aspects are concerned, the Commission proposal for amending Council Regulation
(EC) No 2820/98 is based on Article 133 (ex Article 113) of the EC Treaty which (cid:129) despite the
Commission(cid:146)s efforts in the Inter-Governmental Conference (cid:129) does not foresee consultation of the
Parliament. However, the Commission has been sensitive to the political importance of the matter for the
Parliament and has therefore briefed the Parliament as early as possible on the proposal. Wide-ranging
discussions have already taken place. In the sugar sector, the proposal has also been presented to the social
partners and discussed with numerous representatives of the sector. As you certainly know, efforts are
intensifying within the Council to strike a legitimate balance between the different interests involved.

(1) COM(2000) 561 final.
(2) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.

(2001/C 235 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3871/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Ebola fever

The Ebola fever epidemic is continuing to spread in the north of Uganda, once again hitting three refugee
camps, especially in Pabo, where at least 38 thousand people are living in a precarious situation, to put it
mildly.

The same epidemic is also affecting Kenya and other countries are at risk.

If there is a massive outbreak of the disease in one of these camps it could have disastrous consequences
and attacks by the (cid:145)Lord(cid:146)s Resistence Army(cid:146) make it difficult to control the epidemic. In view of this, the
following are needed:

(cid:129) an urgent public health programme for the hospitals of Lacor and Gulu;

(cid:129) the organising of emergency medical teams;

(cid:129) measures to prevent the spread of the disease and to monitor the people infected.