WRITTEN QUESTION E-2351/01 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission. Implementation of technical and financial assistance measures for ACP banana producers.
Date: 2001-08-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, aid system, competitiveness, financial aid, implementation of the budget, production aid, technical cooperation, tropical fruit

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/117

The audits of Union development projects in Cambodia, and in particular the Rehabilitation and Support
Programme for the Agricultural Sector of Cambodia (Prasac) projects, are not intended to assess the overall
situation in the country as regards corruption and fraud. Their remit is limited to determining whether the
project funds have been used correctly, on the basis of effective financial management and control systems.
Many of the projects do however support the application of good governance and sound and efficient
management in the field in which they operate. Furthermore, the auditors have, in the case of the Prasac
projects, detected no instances of fraud or corruption in their execution.

(2002/C 93 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2350/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 August 2001)

Subject: JRC in Ispra

In 1999, a dossier prepared by Mr Augusto Fichtner, a former employee of the JRC in Ispra, was submitted
to OLAF, which pointed towards serious irregularities at the Centre pre-1997.

Can the Commission provide details of steps that have been taken to investigate this case? Has the current
or the previous Commission conducted its own investigations into the allegations of corruption and
mismanagement?

Can the Commission confirm whether a senior official at the JRC was also a managing director of various
companies located in northern Italy at this time and, if so, is this in line with the provisions of the Staff
Regulations?

Were contractors of the JRC paid on time, and were the findings of research undertaken on contract by the
JRC divulged at any time to third parties?

Answer given by Mr. Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

An administrative enquiry has been conducted within the Joint Research Centre (DG JRC) in order to verify
the allegations brought in the dossier referred to by the Honourable Minister.

Concerning the senior official at the JRC suspected of involvement in unauthorised external activities with
companies located in the north of Italy, the Commission would point out that a disciplinary procedure had
already been opened before the dossier concerning this case was produced. It was shown that the senior
official was in fact involved in such activities. In the course of the disciplinary procedure, the appointing
authority (AIPN) was informed by the Commission’s medical service that, owing to his state of health, the
senior official was unable to attend the hearing provided for by the staff regulations. He died a shortly
afterwards.

As far as the other matters raised are concerned (in his dossier the writer mentions, among other things,
delays in the payment of bills caused by the behaviour of the above-mentioned official), the administrative
enquiry concluded that there was not sufficient evidence for effective action.

The results of the administrative enquiry carried out by the JRC have been communicated to OLAF
(European Antifraud Office). OLAF has announced that an examination of this dossier has not led to the
opening of an enquiry.

(2002/C 93 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2351/01

by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Implementation of technical and financial assistance measures for ACP banana producers

In 1999 the European Union adopted a set of technical and financial assistance measures for a period of
ten years (until 2008) in favour of traditional ACP banana suppliers (Council Regulation (EC) 856/1999 (1)
and Commission Regulation (EC) 1609/1999 (2)) to improve their competitiveness and promote their
adjustment to new market conditions which will enter into force in 2006.

C 93 E/118

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

ACP producers should benefit from such measures as rapidly as possible.

However, problems in the management of this assistance and the complexity of its procedures are causing
delays in consideration of applications and the payment of the relevant funds. No payment has yet been
made.

Clarifications are therefore required.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to put an end to these delays and speed up payments?

What are the Commission’s intentions regarding the schedule for payment of funds under the assistance
programme? Does the Commission plan, in particular, to make most of the payments in the early part of
the period (before 2006)? What specific measures are planned to provide financial support and guidance
for ACP producers who do not have long experience of the European market?

(1) OJ L 108, 27.4.1999, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

In the period to 15 August 2001 Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 of 22 April 1999 establishing a
special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas and Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1609/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No
856/1999 were implemented in the following manner:

In the 1999 budget the Commission earmarked €45 million for projects under the special framework of
assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas established by the above Regulations. Subsequent
budget allocations were €44 475 000 for 2000 and €44 million for 2001. The allocation in the
preliminary draft budget for 2002 is €45 million.

Under the 1999 budget financing agreements were signed with nine of the 12 ‘traditional ACP suppliers’
for projects totalling €44.5 million. The following year saw ten agreements signed for a total of
€44 075 million. Overall, the signatories earmarked 77 % of funding for improving the competitiveness of
their bananas in 1999 and 73 % the following year, using the rest for diversification.

Projects for financing under the 2001 budget were still being appraised at 15 August 2001.

At that date disbursements totalled €9 862 million. This figure has to be set against the fact that the first
project financing agreements were only signed by the Commission in August 2000 and by the beneficiary
countries in the period September 2000-February 2001. The conclusion of these agreements was beset by
legal problems: this being a ten-year programme with 12 beneficiary countries and, therefore, a potential
120 agreements, the Commission had to develop a system that was as simple and harmonised as the rules
in force allowed. For their part, the signatory countries encountered problems arising from the fact that the
status of the ultimate beneficiaries differed considerably from one country to another: from one, wholly
state-owned production company in Suriname to thousands of small family plantations in the Windward
Islands.

Disbursements are expected to speed up in the latter half of this year now that 19 agreements detailing
specific aid arrangements have been signed.

As for the schedule of payments, the Commission has complied with Article 1(2) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 856/1999 by providing an overall annual allocation since 1999, an allocation which has varied
from €44 to €45 million for the first four years. From 2004 onwards Article 7(2) of that Regulation
stipulates ‘a maximum reduction coefficient of 15 %’ is to be applied to the level of assistance.

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/119

With regard to ACP producers with little experience of the European market, Article 3 of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 provides for the competitivity gap, and therefore the financial allocation,
to be determined not just by the difference between the reference price for third countries and the ACP
reference price, but by the reference quantity. Though the latter is 0 tonnes for Madagascar, 20 tonnes for
Cape Verde and 2 222 tonnes for Grenada, Article 6 of the same Regulation provides that where the
calculation of a country’s allocation results in an amount lower than €500 000 per year, a minimum
amount of €500 000 is automatically allocated. This rule, which has been applied to the three countries
concerned in the 1999, 2000 and 2001 budget years, constitutes special protection for producers with
little experience of the European market.

(2002/C 93 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2353/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: China’s entry into the WTO

Since 1995 the WTO has granted countries which have negotiated accession to that body the status of
developing countries in accordance with the terms agreed in the accession negotiations.

In the context of negotiations on WTO membership, the Commission recently reached an agreement on
the main points of divergence surrounding China’s accession to the WTO. Can the Commission say exactly
what status or terms have been granted to China in the context of negotiations on accession to the WTO?
Has the Commission taken account of the fact that China has some highly competitive industrial sectors
and that developing country status should depend on such factors?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The World trade organization (WTO) does not grant the status of developing countries in the course of
accession negotiations. The status of developing country is in fact the result of a self-declaration by the
acceding country. However, while the WTO foresees special conditions for those members that have
declared themselves to be developing countries, such conditions do not automatically apply to acceding
candidates, whose accession terms result exclusively from the accession negotiations. China itself has
accepted, in some areas, explicitly not to apply provisions foreseen in the WTO for developing Members.

Each negotiation aims therefore at determining terms of accession that are specific to that country and
commensurate with its economic capacity and development. The same approach has been followed in the
case of China.

Its accession terms, now almost completely defined, have therefore been negotiated by the various WTO
members taking into consideration the different levels of development between the various Chinese
industrial as well as agricultural and services sectors. The Commission has clearly taken into consideration
in the course of the negotiations such different levels of development and insisted, where the Chinese
economy is competitive, on adequate commitments.

(2002/C 93 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2358/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Inter-state problem involving time-sharing

(6 August 2001)

On 26 October 1994 Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 94/47/EC (1) on the protection of
purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable
properties on a time-share basis.