WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Eastern Europe at a permanent economic disadvantage as a result of the historical division of labour within a common market.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU Member State, economic disparity, enlargement of the Union

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/55

(2002/C 115 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2285/01

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foie gras (cid:19) force feeding of ducks

In its 1999 recommendations concerning domestic geese and ducks, the Council of Europe’s Standing
Committee of
for farming purposes
recommended that countries allowing foie gras production should encourage research on its welfare
aspects and on alternative methods which do not include gavage.

the European Convention for the protection of animals kept

Is the Commission aware of any action taken by Member States to meet these recommendations? Since the
Council of Europe’s 1999 recommendations allowing foie gras production encouraged research on its
include gavage, has this research been
welfare aspects and on alternative methods which do not
undertaken by such countries?

(2002/C 115 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2286/01

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foie gras (cid:19) force feeding of ducks

When does the Commission anticipate that other Member States will implement Directive 98/58/EC (1)
into their national legislation and, in so doing, do they intend to ban force feeding?

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2284/01, E-2285/01 and E-2286/01
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The recommendations adopted by the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection
of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes are addressed to the Parties of the Convention.

The definition of ‘current practice’ to limit the production of foie gras to certain areas in Europe has been
agreed by the Parties to the Convention. They are entrusted with enforcing the requirements of these
recommendations as adopted, such as the ones mentioned by the Honourable Member.

All Member States have implemented Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for
farming purposes (1) into their national legislation. However, it should be mentioned that a ban on force-
feeding is neither foreseen by Directive 98/58/EC nor by the recommendations mentioned above.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2002/C 115 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Eastern Europe at a permanent economic disadvantage as a result of the historical division of

labour within a common market

1.
Does the Commission share my view that the integration of new member states into the European
Union will cause the fewest problems when the standard of living of the countries concerned is more or

C 115 E/56

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

less similar to the average GDP of the existing Member States and their convenient location makes it easy
to attract and develop innovative businesses, as was the case with most of the earlier enlargements.

2.
How does the Commission envisage preventing a situation in which future member states from
Eastern Europe are permanently condemned to return to their traditional pre-1940 position, in which they
were the poor backyard of the West, exporting cheap agriculture and mineral products and having to
import expensive high-tech industrial products?

In the Commission’s view, will a return to the division of labour as described in paragraph 2 mean
3.
that the standard of living in the East will continue to differ significantly from that in the West, resulting in
a greater need for protection in those countries to enable them to safeguard and develop their own
industries?

How many jobs have already been lost in the eight countries most likely to join in the near future,

4.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia, since 1990?

5.

6.

How many jobs will the same countries have to shed if they are to satisfy the environmental acquis?

How many jobs will be lost in these countries as a result of membership of a common market?

How many jobs would be lost as a result of introduction of the single currency, which will make it

7.
easier for purchasing power to be spent on foreign products?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2001)

The candidates for accession to the EU are in the process of convergence with the EU (convergence
1.
can be evaluated on the basis of per capita GDP in purchasing power parities). Clearly, the closer the level
of development of the candidate countries gets to that of the EU, the easier their integration in the Union
will be. However, the only economic criteria for accession are that the countries must have a viable market
economy and be able to cope with the competition when they join the EU.

The Union has developed and enhanced a pre-accession policy designed to assist the accession candidates
in working for convergence.

2.
At present nearly all the accession candidates have a significant deficit in their trade balance with the
EU. This is natural at their stage of economic development, since their economies are at the ‘take-off’ stage:
they need to import a great deal, particularly of capital goods. Similar situations have already occurred
when other countries joined the European Community. The important thing is that the deficit should be
sustainable (in terms of balance of payments). So it has been for nearly all the candidates. In the rare cases
where accession candidates encountered difficulties in certain years, they were able to recover rapidly.

Past experience of trade integration with the EU indicates that there is a specialisation in production but
that most trade is carried on within the same branches of the economy.

3.
The Structural and Cohesion Funds should enable the future Member States to implement
development strategies and modernise their economies, as has been the case with the Member States and
regions currently receiving support from these Funds (see the Second Cohesion Report adopted by the
Commission on 31 January 2001).

This should help to maintain a flow of direct foreign investment, allowing productivity in future Member
States to be brought up to a level comparable with that of the EU.

4.
As mentioned in the chapter on Social Cohesion in the Second Cohesion Report, between 1988 and
1997 the level of employment fell by nearly a fifth in the Central European candidate countries. The
sharpest fall was in the early years of the transition period. The situations subsequently stabilised in some
of these countries, with the unemployment rate falling.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/57

Compliance with EU environmental standards may have an impact on employment in countries with
5.
particularly high-pollution industries, but measures to meet EU requirements will also create many jobs in
sectors relating to environmental protection. These are sectors with a particularly promising future.

The overall effect of membership of a common market and the use of a single currency (in due
6. and 7.
course, when the candidate countries are in a position to introduce the Euro) will not be to reduce the
number of jobs. On the contrary, it will help to create jobs, since resources will be better deployed and
productivity increased, which will allow productive sectors to be developed.

(2002/C 115 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Imports of contaminated meat into Greece

(31 July 2001)

According to Document No K 3768 of the Veterinary Service of the Prefecture of Piraeus, an inspection on
30 May 2001 found that 17,2 tonnes of beef from Germany and 12,5 tonnes of beef from France were
contaminated with listeria, and this meat was seized on 14 June 2001.

More recently, a similar incident occurred with 3,5 tonnes of beef from Germany, as Document No K
4377 of the Veterinary Service of the Prefecture of Piraeus shows, and this beef was seized on 11 July
2001. In both cases the meat was accompanied by all the necessary certification.

Is the Commission aware of these incidents? Is it satisfied with the controls on imports and exports of
animal products between the Member States of the European Union, particularly in the case of France and
Germany?

What does the Commission intend to do to prevent any recurrence of such incidents in future?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

The Commission’s rapid alert network was not informed of the facts mentioned by the Honourable
Member. Article 4 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in
intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1) specifies that products
obtained in accordance with the relevant veterinary directives should be checked in the same way, whether
they are intended for intra-Community trade or for the national market.

With the exception of Council Directive 92/46/EEC laying down the health rules for the production and
placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products (2), no other veterinary
directive lays down microbiological criteria relating to Listeria monocytogenes. Where limits for this
micro-organism are laid down for foodstuffs other than milk and milk-based products, this is based on
national regulations. In order to conform with the Treaty, such regulations must be based on sound
scientific opinion and should not constitute an obstacle to trade. The monitoring procedures required to
set these limits are also the responsibility of the Member States in question.

The Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health, in its opinion of 23 September
1999, mentions that, according to the data available on the human epidemiology of food-borne listeriosis,
the presence of fewer than 100 Listeria monocytogenes per gram at the consumption stage may be
considered as a low risk to all consumer populations.