WRITTEN QUESTION P-1068/01 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The US New Africa Initiative and Bangladeshi textiles.
Date: 2001-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bangladesh, United States, textile industry, the EU's international role, trade policy

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/29

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The Community initiative Interreg is the most important one in financial terms during the programming
period 2000-2006. According to the conclusions of the European Council of Berlin, due attention should
be given to cross-border activities, in particular in the perspective of enlargement and for Member States
which have extensive frontiers with the applicant countries.

On the basis of indicative financial allocations per Member State established by the Commission specifying
the margins of flexibility between the different strands of Interreg, Member States make a breakdown of
funding by strand, border and region, as appropriate. In breaking down this amount, Member States have
to ensure that, on an indicative basis, at least 50 % of their total allocation for Interreg III is allocated to
cross-border co-operation under strand A. As all Interreg III strand A programme proposals have in the
meantime been submitted, it can be stated that about 67 % of the Interreg allocation will be dedicated to
cross-border co-operation.

The Commission is currently in the process of negotiating the Interreg programmes drawn up by the
authorities designated by the Member States. Once the Commission has approved those programmes, all
resources with the exception of a certain amount set aside for networking in the framework of Interreg
will be allocated. No additional financial resources will be available during the current programming
period, as the Commission is required to respect the financial perspectives agreed at the European Council
of Berlin.

Following the request made by the European Council of Nice,
the Commission is preparing
a communication on regions bordering candidate countries. The communication will evaluate their socio-
economic situation, analyse the potential impact of enlargement on those regions and examine the existing
Community instruments. In addition, the communication will include proposals for actions to optimise
and better co-ordinate the existing Community instruments in place to support border regions. The
communication is likely to be adopted before the summer break.

(2001/C 350 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0695/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Textiles industry in Bangladesh

Does the Commission intend to respond to calls from the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, for
the US to extend duty, and quota, free access, which is already offered to 33 least developed countries, to
Bangladeshi textiles and garments? Will direct contact be made with the EU(cid:146)s trade counterparts in the
United States?

(2001/C 350 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1068/01

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: The US (cid:145)New Africa(cid:146) Initiative and Bangladeshi textiles

(26 March 2001)

In its offer of duty-free and quota-free access, the US Trade and Development Act 2000 makes a critical
distinction between ACP least-developed countries, and non-ACP least-developed countries. This somewhat
arbitrary distinction is already having a very negative impact on the textiles and garments sector in
Bangladesh, for which the US market is extremely important. This is particularly regrettable, since it is
precisely the growth of this sector which has enabled many thousands of Bangladeshi women to earn an
independent income and to make significant progress towards greater equality.

C 350 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

In the light of its own Everything-But-Arms initiative, will the Commission contact its trade counterparts
in the United States and argue for the extension of duty-free and quota-free access for all least-developed
countries?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0695/01and P-1068/01
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2001)

The Commission understands the concern of Bangladesh about its market position and market share
following the adoption of the American Trade and Development Act (USTDA 2000) from which, together
with the other Asian least developed countries (LDCs), it is excluded.

As far as the Community is concerned, Bangladesh(cid:146)s status as least developed country implies duty- and
quota free access for its textile and clothing exports to the Community and this has enabled the country to
significantly increase its exports of these products to the European market, becoming the Community(cid:146)s
10th largest supplier.

The Commission would encourage other developed countries to grant similar treatment to LDCs, and is in
this respect encouraged by the reaction of countries such as Chile and New Zealand to the Community(cid:146)s
(cid:145)Everything but Arms(cid:146)
initiative (EBA initiative) which extends duty and quota-free access to the
Community market for all products from the 49 least developed countries.

The EBA initiative reflects the importance the Community attaches to a full integration of developing
countries, in particular the least developed countries, into the multilateral trading system. This is of course
a subject of discussion with other developed country trading partners, including the United States.

(2001/C 350 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Suckler cow premiums

Would the Commission agree that the recent (cid:145)seven point plan(cid:146) for the UK is unfavourable to beef
production in the UK, and especially for Wales? Given the proposal to reduce the number of productive
suckler cows eligible for the suckler cow premium, the UK will be affected disproportionately (cid:129) with 18 %
of the suckler cows population in the UK compared with only 11 % of total EU beef production.

Does the Commission accept that it is unfair that the UK has to introduce these changes when we already
have in place an over thirty month scheme that has removed animals from the market for the last five
years?

Does the Commission also accept that reducing the number of suckler cows in the market will have
a negative effect on consumers as it will reduce the higher quality beef being produced for the European
consumer?

Is it not also illogical to further concentrate beef production from dairy herds where a much higher
incidence of BSE has occurred.

Finally, will the Commission look again at the calf slaughter premium scheme? This scheme can be carried
out at lower cost than the other measures being proposed by the Commission such as the change to the
suckler cow scheme. It will remove the lower quality animals from the market and will also have a more
rapid impact in the re-balancing of the market.