WRITTEN QUESTION E-1296/01 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission. Impact of the trade policy on the Common Agricultural Policy.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common agricultural policy, generalised preferences, impact study, preferential agreement, third country, trading operation

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/77

Commission as taxes covered by Article 1, paragraph 1 of Directive 83/183/EEC. According to this
provision, in the particular case of transferring normal residence, an exemption from these taxes has to be
granted. As a minority of Member States do not respect this obligation, the Commission has already
opened or is prepared to examine opening infringement procedures against them.

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.
(2) Council Directive 83/183/EEC, of 28 March 1983, on exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member

State of the personal property of individuals (OJ L 105, 23.4.1983).

(2001/C 364 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1296/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Impact of the trade policy on the Common Agricultural Policy

The EU(cid:146)s trade and development policies are increasingly geared towards drawing up agreements with third
countries on trade concessions.

Clearly, the Community(cid:146)s interest lies in encouraging exports of hi-tech products of high added value,
whilst in most cases the countries benefiting from the above-mentioned concessions tend to export
agricultural products.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

1.

2.

3.

4.

the list of all unilateral tariff concessions not subject to contract (GSP), as well as the bilateral and
multilateral tariff concessions currently in force;

the quantity of agricultural and fisheries products which may be imported under such schemes and
that which is actually imported;

the direct and indirect burden of this on the Community budget and on the EAGGF in particular;

in the interests of transparency, why are these costs not entered under a specific budget heading,
which would highlight the EU(cid:146)s openness to third countries whilst at the same time highlighting the
cost to the agricultural sector of the trade policy?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Trade concessions are granted by the Community to third countries as there is an economic interest for
the Community to foster trade with a certain region so as to increase economic advantages for both
partners. Moreover increased trade flows can contribute to the development and stabilisation of third
countries and facilitate their integration into the world economy.

Implications for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are always carefully considered before a decision is
made.

1.

EU tariff concessions currently in force:

(cid:129) Generalised tariff preferences (GSP): The Community(cid:146)s scheme of GSP provides preferential market
access to all developing countries and economies in transition. Beneficiaries of the Community(cid:146)s GSP
are listed in Annex III of the GSP Regulation (1). This list includes 146 independent countries and 25
dependent or administered territories. To the extent
tariff preferences under the Cotounu
agreement are more favourable, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are likely to use rather
the latter. The GSP offers four different arrangements available to different countries and including
different products. Preferences are expressed as a percentage by which most favoured nations (MFN)
duty rates are reduced, according to the degree of (cid:145)sensitivity(cid:146) of each product. Since 1995, all GSP

that

C 364 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

preferences are granted without quantitative restrictions. Under the general arrangements, preferences
tariff range from 85 % of the normal Common Customs Tariff (CCT) for very sensitive products to
duty free access for non-sensitive products. The Commission on 12 June 2001 adopted a proposal for
revision to the Generalised Scheme of Tariff Preferences for the years 2002 to 2004. This regulation is
designed to simplify the GSP regime, restore the level of its benefits and target them more effectively
in the interests of developing countries. It is also intended to improve the effectiveness of special
incentives to promote core labour and environmental standards.

the Central American Common Market

The special arrangements to support countries combating drug trafficking and production provide
additional preferences to the countries of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru,
and later Venezuela), and of
(Costa Rica, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador) as well as to Panama. The beneficiary countries of these
arrangements benefit
industrial products included in the general
arrangements as well as for certain agricultural exports (listed in Annex VII of the GSP regulation) not
included in the latter. The Republic of Moldova benefits of the special incentive arrangements for the
protection of
rights under which additional preferences are granted. These additional
preferences almost double those available under the general arrangements (see article 10 of the GSP
regulation).

from duty-free access for all

labour

The (cid:145)Everything But Arms(cid:146)
initiative opens the Community market duty free and without any
quantitative restrictions to all least developed countries (amendment to the GSP regulation). The only
exceptions are arms, which have never been included in the GSP, as well as sugar, rice and bananas,
which will be liberalised for those countries over the next eight years.

(cid:129) ACP Economic Partnership: The Agreement signed in February 2000 forwards non-reciprocal trade
preferences awarded under LomØ for an additional eight years, during which time the Community
intends to negotiate reciprocal Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with sub groups of the ACP countries.

(cid:129) Asymmetrical trade preferences for the Balkans: The Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 of
18 September 2000 (subsequently extended to Serbia) provides for the extension and improvement of
the Community autonomous trade preferences for Western Balkan countries. The regulation brings the
duty free access of the imports of these countries to 95 %. The decision abolishes remaining tariff
ceilings for certain industrial products originating in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and
Serbia and improves access for agricultural products including processed agricultural and fishery
products originating in these countries.

(cid:129) The Europe Agreements: The Europe Agreements concluded with accession countries aim to establish
a free-trade area between the Community and the associated countries, on the basis of reciprocity but
in an asymmetric manner. As a result of this process, industrial products from the associated countries
have had virtually free access to the Community since the beginning of 1995, with restrictions in
some sensitive sectors, such as agriculture and textiles.

There are a number of other Community trade agreements containing tariff concessions, e.g. the free
trade agreement with Mexico which entered into force in July 2000, the Agreements with the
Mediterranean countries that foresee the gradual establishment of a free trade area with 2010 as
a target date, the Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement with South Africa which provides
for the establishment of a Free Trade Area, through an asymmetric tariff dismantling over a transitorial
period of 10 years for the Community and 12 years for South Africa.

More comprehensive information on bilateral and multilateral tariff concessions will be sent direct to
the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

2.

Products imported by the Member States under preferential schemes:

(cid:129) Quantities imported under quota and benefiting from tariff concessions are monitored by the relevant
Commission(cid:146)s services.
In particular for sensitive products like fruit and vegetables a database
providing a daily updated level of use of preferential quota is available for public consultation on
Internet.

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/79

(cid:129) In many cases actual imports are far below attributed quotas. This is due to various reasons related to
the lack of capacity by the exporting country to comply to minimal quality requirements for selling
on Community markets, but also to the weakness of the export and trading infrastructure.

(cid:129) Finally, considering that the Community is at the same time the biggest importer and the biggest
exporter of agricultural products, Community concessions to third countries should be appreciated in
the light of reciprocal concessions given by third countries to the Community in agricultural trade.
These concessions facilitate improved penetration of Community agricultural commodities on foreign
domestic markets.

(cid:129) For fishery products a chart is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

3. and 4.

The financial impact of trade concessions in agriculture:

(cid:129) In 1997 (latest figures available), the total value of agricultural imports under the GSP amounted to

€ 9 480 million. The loss of budgetary revenue during that year was € 473 million.

(cid:129) The Commission has no other aggregated data regarding the cost of trade concessions to the
for trade concessions is introduced by the
Community budget. However, whenever a proposal
Commission, an impact study is made for each traded product, in particular as regards budget costs.
The financial impact is reflected in the financial appendix that is annexed to the proposal. However,
the actual cost of trade concessions cannot be quantified in advance, -except for the full volume of
a tariff quota concession, as it depends on the amount of actual trade that takes place under the trade
regimes at preferential conditions.

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

(2001/C 364 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/01

by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE),
Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Nistic(cid:242) (PPE-DE)
and Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Waste problem (cid:129) construction of a waste screening plant in Palomonte

In the Campania region waste disposal has become an emergency of unprecedented seriousness. None of
the Italian authorities, both national and regional (most of whom of the centre-left) have ever carried out
careful surveys of the area to find more suitable sites for the disposal and screening of waste.

Can the Commission say on what basis the decision was made to build the screening plant in the
municipality of Palomonte, province of Salerno, given that such a decision conflicts with the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

the area in question is an atypical industrial area considered to be a centre of the agri-foodstuffs
industry and therefore highly unsuitable for the plant in question;

the building in question was intended for a different use;

the said building is already equipped for the production of foodstuffs, which means that the existing
plant would have to be destroyed;

the project plainly conflicts with Community directives in that no environmental impact assessment
has been carried out.

In the light of the above, will the Commission make representations to the competent bodies to ensure
compliance with the legislation referred to in point 4?