WRITTEN QUESTION E-2704/01 by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission. G8 meeting in Genoa.
Date: 2001-10-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, UNO, cooperation policy, debt reduction, developing countries, group of leading industrialised countries, public health, summit meeting

C 147 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(2002/C 147 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2704/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: G8 meeting in Genoa

The European Community, as created by De Gasperi, Adenauer and Schuman, was intended as a means of
overcoming the selfishness of states and of encouraging solidarity with the world’s poorer regions.

At the G8 meeting, the democratically elected leaders of some of the most advanced countries of the world
held their periodic discussions on a few of the innumerable serious problems affecting the life of the
planet. For the first time, representatives of the European Union, the UN and a number of poor countries
were invited to the meeting. A number of measures were adopted with respect to the poorer countries
which, without resolving the problems, at least represent a small step towards cancellation of the debt and
a possible improvement in health conditions.

In the light of the above, how does the Commission intend to follow up the conclusions of the Genoa
Summit over the coming months?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2001)

The Community has taken part in the process of the group of seven/eight most industrialised countries
(G7/G8) ever since 1977. The President of the Commission takes part in the Summit every year. The
the European Council also takes part whenever a non-G8 member holds the Council
President of
Presidency. As such, in Genoa, the Community was represented by Mr Guy Verhofstadt as President of the
European Council and by President Prodi.

At the Summit in July 2001, for the second year in a row, a number of leaders from developing countries
were invited to take part in a meeting with G8 leaders. This was, undoubtedly, one of the most significant
events of the Genoa Summit and allowed for an open exchange between all those present. Following this
meeting, the G8 leaders agreed on the Genoa Plan for Africa and on the establishment of a group of high
level personal representatives to liaise with African leaders on the development of a concrete Action Plan
to be approved at the G8 Summit next year. President Prodi’s personal representative will thus take part in
the group and will contribute to the development of the Action Plan.

This, of course, was not the only development-related issue to be dealt with in Genoa. Indeed, as the
Honourable Member rightly highlights in his question, the main focus of the Summit was one of caring
and responsibility vis-à-vis the developing world. G8 leaders also agreed on the establishment of a G8 Task
Force on development and education; made a substantial contribution to the newly established Global
Health Fund, and further developed their dialogue on poverty reduction, market access, health, education
and food security.

The Commission will fully take part in the newly created G8 groupings whilst remaining committed to
pursuing the Community development strategy. The Honourable Member’s question relates to the
Commission’s activities in two specific areas: debt reduction and health.

The Commission is a strong advocate of the need for debt relief to poor countries. The majority of
Community aid is delivered as grants, thus helping developing countries without adding to their debt
burden. The Commission has, since the beginning, supported the HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Country)
Initiative which is the main instrument the Donor Community has designed to address debt reduction. The
Community contributes directly to the debt relief initiative, a total of € 1 082,97 million up to now. To
date, 18 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries have benefited from Community assistance as debt
relief. The Commission has also proposed to cancel all special loans owed to the Community by Least
Developed Countries. The proposal is due for adoption by the ACP-Community Council of Ministers by
the end of 2001.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/43

Furthermore, the new Partnership Agreement between the 77 ACP and the 15 Member States signed in
Cotonou, Benin, on 23 June 2000,
foresees specific possibilities regarding in particular the use of
European Development Fund (EDF) resources for debt relief and the provision of technical assistance in the
area of debt management.

With reference to health, the Community contribution to the Global Fund fighting human immunodefi-
ciency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis (launched in
Genoa) is part of the Community Programme for Action targeting Communicable Diseases in the context
of poverty reduction which was adopted by the Council on 14 May 2001. President Prodi pledged € 120
million for the Fund. The Commission and the Member States together pledged more than € 1 000 million
out of total pledges of € 1 800 million, thus making the Community the largest contributor.

In order to mobilise the pledged funds the Commission has recently submitted to the budgetary authority a
proposal for a budget transfer of € 60 million to the line for poverty diseases (B7-6211) and for future
contributions, the Commission has proposed to endow a budget line covered by a new regulation on
poverty disease with a substantially increased amount from which to finance the Fund.

(2002/C 147 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: EU D Kingdom of Morocco relations

(3 October 2001)

In that reply, Commissioner Patten observes that

In his reply to my question E-2355/01 (1), Commissioner Patten refers me to his answer to written
question E-1228/01 (2).
‘The Commission and the
Kingdom of Morocco signed an Association Agreement which came into force on 1 March 2000. Its long-
term aid is the creation of a free trade area between both parties. The dismantling of tariffs linked to the
Agreement’s implementation will mean on the one hand the gradual opening up of the Moroccan market,
which will be advantageous to Community operators, and on the other hand, will require a major effort by
Moroccan producers to cope with Europrean competition. The MEDA Programme was developed to help
Morocco improve its economy during the transition towards free trade. Nevertheless, it is important to
remember in this context that since the Association Agreement came into force, the dismantling of tariffs
has meant a short-term reduction in the Moroccan annual budget, which the MEDA Programme barely
offsets as a result of the limited Community funding available for cooperation with other countries’.

This reply leaves me speechless with surprise at the Commission’s utter failure to make any reference to
the special conditions and preferential treatment enjoyed by Moroccan exports to the European Union of
agricultural and fishery products, inter alia, within the framework of the Association Agreement. The reply
gives the impression that the Agreement benefits only the EU, and represents a major sacrifice on the part
of Morocco. Nor is there any reference to the substantial financial compensation which the EU offered the
Kingdom of Morocco with a view to securing renewal of the Fishery Agreement, quite apart from the aid it
was already receiving and continues to receive under MEDA.

1.
Can the Commission state the global annual amount which the Kingdom of Morocco has received
and will continue to receive within the framework of the current MEDA Programme, what the purpose of
these payments is and which areas they are to be spent in?

2. What is the rate of take-up of this annual amount to date?

3. What are the details of the conditions and the preferential treatment to be given, within the EU, to
Moroccan exports of agricultural and fishery products under the Association Agreement?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 239.
(2) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 225.