WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/01 by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Presentation of falsified Agrim import licences in connection with the release into free circulation of bananas from Central and South America.
Date: 2001-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: aid to agriculture, customs duties, fraud against the EU, free circulation, free-on-board price, import (EU), import licence, market prices, tropical fruit

C 340 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

that an earthquake would strike Iceland and then on 10 November it predicted the exact size of the
earthquake. Three days later the earthquake struck only two kilometres from the point where the station
(cid:145)tracking(cid:146) the earthquake was situated.

Will the Commission say whether the EU is making full use of the expertise of Prenlab so that human lives
and property can be saved in future? Has Prenlab made any further forecasts since then? Has EU financial
support continued since 1998, and what has been the total amount of this aid? Have the authorities of any
Member State of the Union asked to use Prenlab(cid:146)s expertise and research findings? Finally, have any other
research centres worldwide made any accurate forecasts of earthquakes since 1998?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Prenlab (Earthquake-prediction Research in a Natural Laboratory) was a Seismic Hazard Research Project
funded under the Fourth framework programme (1994-1998) with a Community contribution of
€ 790 000. The European Commission continued funding the Research through a further project
(Prenlab-2) with a Community contribution of € 1 162 000, and more recently SM-Site (Developing Stress
Monitoring Sites and Infrastructure for Forecasting Earthquakes), an infrastructure project under the Fifth
framework programme (1998-2002), with a Community contribution of € 1 300 000. The scientific teams
scientists during the
involved in Prenlab presented their
Community-Japan workshops on Seismic Risk held in Reykjavik, Iceland, in June 1999 and Kyoto, Japan,
in March 2000.

results to European and Japanese peer

Since the earthquake of November 1998, Prenlab has made no further official forecast. The Community
continues to fund research and development carried out by this team through the SM-Site infrastructure
project, with a view to obtaining future positive results. The final report of this project, presenting the final
scientific results obtained, was only made available to the Commission during beginning of 2001 and, until
now, no specific request has been made by any Member State to use Prenlab(cid:146)s expertise and research
findings. One of the most important results are the new methods for monitoring crustal processes leading
to large earthquakes. Despite these promising results the validity and applicability of such forecast is being
still debated in the scientific community.

Since 1998, no other research centers have made accurate short-term forecasts, but many teams worldwide
prepare medium to long term forecast of seismic hazard mainly for seismic design purposes.

Prenlab will also be presented and reviewed at two important upcoming events:

(cid:129) The DMSG meeting (Disaster Management Support Group of the committee for earth observation

satellites) to be held in Brussels from 25-27 June 2001.

(cid:129) The scientific review workshop of Community coordinators scheduled from 5-7 September 2001.

(2001/C 340 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/01

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Presentation of falsified Agrim import licences in connection with the release into free circulation

of bananas from Central and South America

According to a request for official assistance made on 29 June 2000 to the competent authorities of the
Member States, the Commission is investigating a number of companies regarding the falsification of
import licences in connection with the importation of bananas from third countries into the Community.
The amount concerned is estimated by the Commission to be at least 200 000 tonnes. The Commission

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/97

has been aware of
(Hortofruticola Acese), evidence was able to be furnished and the fraud was stopped.

such fraud since 1997. On 12 June 2000,

in a case

concerning Italy

The Commission:

1. Does its estimate of illegal imports of bananas into the Community refer to an annual amount or to

the total amount of bananas imported fraudulently since 1997?

2.

Is it the case that, in particular since 1998, imports of bananas involving fraud have led to serious
disturbance on the market and to a steep fall in market prices?

3. Could the Commission indicate (cid:129) giving a breakdown by year (cid:129) the level of increase in producer

subsidies since 1997?

4.

5.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, is there a connection between the trend in producer subsidies and the
market price trend?

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, what savings would have been made by the Community with regard to
producer subsidies if the price trend in 1994-1996 had been maintained?

6. What losses of duties have been suffered by the Community in connection with imports of bananas

without proper import licences?

7.

Following the discovery of one of the cases of fraud, the Commission adopted without delay the
regulation adding a new Article 26a to Regulation No 2362/98 (1) with a view to preventing further
fraud involving falsified import licences or unauthorised issuing of import licences. Why did the
Commission not already take such measures when it began to suspect such fraud in 1997?

(1) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 32.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has indicated that at this stage around 210 000 tonnes of
fraudulent banana imports have been identified in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. As the judicial enquiry
is still in progress, the Commission is not in a position to give more information on the overall fraud
assessment.

It is extremely difficult to judge whether the fraud has had an impact on the price of bananas and, if so,
how great an impact. Other factors have had a more direct impact on price levels. In recent years, the
availability of export bananas on the world market, already in surplus, increased by another 10 % primarily
as a result of increased production in Ecuador. Free-on-board prices (FOB) of Ecuadorian bananas and the
Community import price fell by more than 15 % between 1996 and 2000.

Other elements should also be taken into account, such as competition with other fruits, whether or not
weather conditions are favourable to banana consumption, and the overall fruit consumption trend in the
Community.

Unit production aid trends (EUR/100 kg):

(cid:129) 1995: 27,18;

(cid:129) 1996: 29,05;

(cid:129) 1997: 24,81;

(cid:129) 1998: 24,42;

(cid:129) 1999: 29,69.

These figures clearly show that there is no direct link between fraud and trends in aid levels. In 1999 aid
was more or less at 1996 levels, and 1996 is outside the period in which the cases of fraud were
perpetrated.

C 340 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Nor should it be forgotten that the flat-rate reference income, which is the reference income in calculating
compensatory aid, was increased by 5 % for the 1998 marketing year and by 8 % from the 1999 marketing
year.

Production aid is a type of (cid:145)deficiency payment(cid:146). It covers the difference between the flat-rate reference
income and the average price obtained in marketing Community production for a given year.

The answers to points 2 and 3 also cover this point.

The duties to be recovered should cover the difference between the rate of duty applicable outside the
quota in force at the time of actual import and the preferential duty paid when the quotas were used with
the forged certificates.

For the 210 000 tonnes of fraudulent imports identified at this stage, approximately € 160 million of
customs duties has been lost. Recovery proceedings have been launched in the Member States concerned.

When it learned of rumours that forged import licences had been used, the Commission made inquiries in
the Member States. These replied that, in their view, no frauds had been perpetrated and imports had been
carried out in line with the rules.

However, owing to the persistence of these rumours, other more detailed investigations carried out by the
for Agriculture
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
uncovered the first evidence of these frauds.

in collaboration with the Directorate-General

As soon as it had more detailed information on the cases of fraud, and in particular of the nature of those
frauds, the Commission felt that it was essential to take a number of measures immediately to strengthen
the monitoring of import licence arrangements in the banana sector. A Regulation was adopted by the
Commission to this effect on 25 July 2000 (1). It covers mainly the checks to be carried out by the body
issuing the import licences on the authenticity of all licences/licence extracts used in the Community, the
distribution of the list of operators registered for the banana import arrangements with the customs offices
and the procedure to be followed by the customs services in the event of doubt as to the authenticity of
the licences/extracts presented for the release into free circulation of the bananas.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1632/2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 laying down detailed rules for
the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community
(OJ L 187, 26.7.2000).

(2001/C 340 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0807/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 March 2001)

Subject: The operation of the Rapid Reaction Force

Last weekend, at Camp David, Tony Blair and President Bush held a joint press conference having
previously discussed, amongst other things, the implications of the European Rapid Reaction Force.
President Bush said, with the Prime Minister standing next to him, that the latter had (cid:145)assured me that
there would be a joint command, that the planning (of the Rapid Reaction Force) would take place within
NATO, and that should all NATO not wish to go on a mission, that would then (my italics) serve as
a catalyst for the defence forces moving on their own.(cid:146)

On the previous Thursday, Tony Blair told the Canadian Parliament that (cid:145)the initiative on European
defence is not a standing army (cid:133) there will be no separate EU planning structures.(cid:146)

Does the Council believe that these interpretations of the workings of the Rapid Reaction Force are
consistent with the Presidency Report on the European Security and Defence Policy as agreed by the
Member States at Nice?