WRITTEN QUESTION P-2108/01 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission. New banana regime.
Date: 2001-07-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, import (EU), import policy, tariff quota, trade agreement (EU), tropical fruit

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/189

Commission indicated that it would verify this within the clearance of accounts procedure. The
Commission recognises, as pointed out by the Honorable Member, that this case was not covered by
the Commission reply to the second questionnaire for the 1999 discharge, but only in the
Commission reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-1001/01. In this the Commission
stated that the unduly paid amount of NLG 5 136,89 in respect of the 3350 Kg of SMP had in fact
been credited to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in December
1997. Therefore the question of any financial corrections to be imposed on the Member State does
not apply. The Commission is puzzled about the Honourable Member(cid:146)s statement in Written Question
E-2107/01 that the facts should be different.

The above-mentioned replies to Written Question E-2106/01 and also to the initial parts of Written
Question E-2107/01.

For the two last points raised in Written Question E-2107/01, the Commission would like to point out the
following:

(cid:129) In relation to the case of the 3 350 kg of SMP it is important to note that in the Commission(cid:146)s risk
analysis for the controls of aid schemes one element is the actual amount at stake. In this context the
Commission does not find it (cid:145)genuinely disturbing(cid:146) that an amount of NLG 5 136,89 (€ 2 331) had
been unduly paid and later recovered so that the EAGGF fund did not suffer any loss.

(cid:129) Finally, the Commission cannot see how findings concerning adulterated butter can lead to the

conclusions drawn by the Honourable Member in relation to aid to SMP.

(1) OJ C 147, 27.5.1999.

(2002/C 40 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2108/01

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: New banana regime

Further to the answer provided by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission to Written Question P-1511/
01 (1) I request answers to the following:

(cid:129) The importance of reaching an agreement with the US is not in dispute, but it should not be an
agreement that is badly damaging to Banana importing companies in Britain. I would, therefore, ask
the Commission why it has ignored their strenuous objections and those of the European Community
Banana Trade Association, the Banana Plantation Workers(cid:146) Union (SITRAP) of Costa Rica, the National
Chamber of Independent Banana Producers SA, the CSIB (Higher Council of Banana Importers (cid:129)
France) and the Banana Consultative Committee and many others?

(cid:129) I request the Commission(cid:146)s response to the Banana Consultative Committee(cid:146)s strong criticism of the
Regime on the basis that it is (cid:145)damaging the UK/EU banana trade, damaging to Caribbean sources and
discriminatory(cid:146) and that (cid:145)the timetable for implementation does not give sufficient time to renegotiate
the necessary substantial amendments to fruit purchase and logistical contracts(cid:146).

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that agreement had to be reached with
the United States and Ecuador in order to restore harmonious trading relations with the Community(cid:146)s
main partners in the banana sector, since an unresolved dispute was harmful to all concerned.

C 40 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

It should be emphasised that the agreement reached is relatively balanced because as well as satisfying the
Community(cid:146)s partners it above all enables the sector(cid:146)s operators/importers to be kept in the Community
market, since a not inconsiderable share of the tariff quotas is reserved for non-traditional operators.

The Commission would also stress that the management methods adopted by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (1) were discussed beforehand with
everyone
the
through consulting
European Community Banana Trade Association (ECBTA).

individual operators

direct or

in the

sector,

either

via

Managing tariff quotas by reference to past trade patterns also has the advantage of providing security for
importers, including as regards trade with their suppliers and customers. In addition, allowing licences to
be transferred makes it possible to maintain a dynamic element in the system.

The African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) are due to have a reserved quota from 1 January 2002
onwards, which will also entail further amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (2).

(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001.
(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993.

(2002/C 40 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2112/01

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 2001)

Subject: Temelin nuclear power plant environmental impact assessment

In light of the report on the above assessment, preparation of which was agreed in Melk in December
2000 and concluded with a public hearing in Vienna in June 2001, does the Commission agree that the
Czech Republic has fulfilled the commitments made at Melk? Does the Commission also agree that there
are no safety reasons why the commissioning of number one reactor should not proceed?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Under the provisions of Chapter V of the Melk Protocol, the voluntary environmental impact assessment
procedure undertaken by the Czech authorities is to be guided by the Community(cid:146)s Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)-Directive, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). The public
hearings held in Ceske Budejovice on 25 April 2001 and in Vienna on 26 June 2001 represent key steps
in this procedure, in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the said Directive. The same is to be said of the
public consultations conducted in Germany by providing the German public with the opportunity to
express their opinion by means of written depositions.

Following this phase of the EIA procedure, the Czech authorities are to take the results of the public
participation into consideration in the further procedure for the Temelin Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). In
addition to the public participation procedure under the provisions of Article 7 paragraph 4 of the EIA
Directive, a Member State is to enter into consultations with the concerned neighbouring States regarding,
inter alia, the potential trans-boundary effects of the project and the measures envisaged to reduce or
eliminate such effects. The results of such consultations have to be taken into account in the development
consent procedure as well.