WRITTEN QUESTION P-0821/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Substandard subsidised tobacco.
Date: 2001-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU production, common organisation of markets, export, product quality, quality standard, third country, tobacco

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/201

the Commission has given the go-ahead. The French Minister of Agriculture, Glavany, already considers
that his proposal complies (cid:145)perfectly(cid:146) with the criteria stated by the Commission.

As long ago as the January 2001 plenary, the Commission and Council were explicitly warned against
distortion of competition arising from the very disparate support measures. Despite this, the fifteen
agriculture ministers and the Commission still have not succeeded in working out a common European
framework for the financial consequences of the BSE crisis.

While there is huge uncertainty about compensation for the damage which has been suffered, Agriculture
Commissioner Franz Fischler and the Council are passing the parcel to and fro between themselves. On the
evening of Wednesday, 17 January, the Council announced that it was aware of the risks of distortion of
competition arising from the systems of compensation for the collection and disposal of risk material and
(H-0002/01 (1)). In reply to question H-0003/01 (2)
the embargo of December 2000 on animal meal
concerning a coordinated approach, Agriculture Commissioner Fischler laconically referred to the common
organisation of the market in beef and the requirement to notify fiscal and parafiscal measures.

1. What view does the Commission take of the French Government(cid:146)s measure to provide financial
assistance to cattle farmers affected by the BSE crisis? Does this measure comply (cid:145)perfectly(cid:146) with the criteria
adopted by the Commission?

2. Which EU Member States have so far notified the Commission that they intend to adopt national
support measures? Do these measures accord with the criteria adopted by the Commission?

(1) Written answer of 17.1.2001.
(2) Written answer of 16.1.2001.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The Commission has indeed been notified by the French authorities of a scheme to compensate stock
farmers affected by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. In close cooperation with those
authorities, it is currently examining the draft aid scheme in the light of Article 87 (formerly Article 92) of
the EC Treaty. The Commission is not yet therefore in a position to deliver an opinion on the decision that
it will adopt concerning the aid(cid:146)s compatibility with the Community competition rules.

To date, Italy, Ireland and Spain (cid:129) at the level of the autonomous communities (cid:129) and Germany (cid:129) at the
level of the L(cid:228)nder (cid:129) have also notified similar measures directed at stock farmers affected by the BSE
crisis. All these measures are under examination by the Commission and, consequently,
it is not yet
possible to come to a conclusion about the compatibility of the notified aid schemes.

(2001/C 261 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0821/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Substandard subsidised tobacco

Can the Commission give details about the identity of the principal recipients of the tobacco which is
grown within the EU and which benefits from enormous subsidies (almost € 1 000 million) under the
common agricultural policy? Can it confirm that a substantial proportion is exported to non-EU countries
because it is substandard and that it is used in the manœfacture of high-tar and/or high-nicotine cigarettes?

C 261 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

According to the latest available data (1999), the main markets for Community exports of raw tobacco are:

(cid:129) Russia (20 % of total Community exports), United States (13 %), Egypt (7 %), Poland (6 %), Romania
Indonesia (2 %), Turkey (2 %),

(6 %), Switzerland (5 %), Algeria (5 %),
Uruguay, (2 %), Czech Republic (2 %), Tunisia (2 %) and Hungary (2 %).

Japan (3 %), Ukraine (3 %),

Community exports of raw tobacco have decreased from 192 000 tonnes in 1995 to 118 000 tonnes in
1999, i.e. a reduction of approximately 40 %, particularly in the area of lower priced tobaccos; this meant
that the quality of the tobacco actually exported has improved, as shown by an increase in the unit value
of the exported product. The average unit value of Community tobacco exported towards the 15 principal
importing countries represented in 1995 around 30 % of the average unit value of the tobacco imported
from the 15 principal exporting countries. In 1999 this proportion amounted to 60 %. The average price
of Community exported raw tobacco in 1999 was € 2,49 per kilogram while the average world price was
approximately U$ 2,60.

Concerning the final destination of Community exported raw tobacco, the Commission is not in a position
to confirm that a substantial proportion is used in the manufacturing of high-tar and nicotine cigarettes.
As a matter of fact cigarettes are manufactured with blends of raw tobacco from numerous origins. In
addition, it should be borne in mind that additives and manufacturing technology used by the cigarette
industry have a significant effect on the content of nicotine and tar in cigarettes.

Furthermore, the new reform of the common market organisation (CMO) in raw tobacco applied since
1999 has incorporated a quota buy-back programme and the possibility of transferring between varieties.
This has resulted in a decrease in the production of lower priced tobacco varieties, which often contain
high levels of tar and nicotine.

(2001/C 261 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0822/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Destruction of cultural treasures in Afghanistan

(13 March 2001)

The Taliban Government in Afghanistan recently announced its criminal decision to destroy a host of non-
Muslim monuments located on Afghan territory. These artefacts which include Hellenistic monuments and
Buddhist statues have survived for thousands of years, but the Taliban has already begun (cid:129) or will begin
shortly (cid:129) to turn them into heaps of stones in an anachronistic display of hatred and contempt for the
treasures of human artistic creation.

Will the Commission say whether it intends to take immediate action (cid:129) and, if so, what action (cid:129) to put
an end forthwith to this destruction and to save whatever monuments can still be salvaged from the
destructive rage of the Taliban, given that many of these monuments are also symbols of Europe(cid:146)s cultural
creation? Can it make any funds available to protect the world(cid:146)s cultural heritage? How does it view the
idea of setting up a special EU fund for buying up cultural treasures which are threatened with destruction?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Despite what has probably been an unprecedented number of appeals from governments, international
organisations, religious and cultural organisations from around the world, the leader of the Taliban
organisation in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar, has refused to reconsider his order that two Buddhist statues
at Bamiyan should be destroyed. It now appears from press reports that the statues have been destroyed.