WRITTEN QUESTION E-2787/02 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission. Sugar.
Date: 2002-10-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, abolition of customs duties, association agreement (EU), cereal-growing, common agricultural policy, common tariff policy, cooperation policy, economic cooperation, generalised preferences, import (EU), least-developed country, originating product, sugar industry, trading margin

C 11 E/16

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

mentioned standard. In its conclusions, the Appellate Body recommends that the dispute settlement body
(DSB) request the Communities to bring the Regulation into conformity with its obligations under the
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement.

The Commission is disappointed with the WTO ruling, as the Commission places great importance in the
promotion of market transparency and product quality through a clear labelling of
foodstuffs. The
Commission, in particular, considers that the name under which a product is sold must be clear enough to
let the purchaser know its true nature and distinguish it from other products with which it might be
confused.

In any event, the Commission remains fully committed to its international obligations and it will actively
work towards compliance with the WTO ruling, while ensuring at the same time that the Community
marketing rules for preserved sardines and related fish species achieve a high standard of consumer
protection and avoid any possible risk of misleading. In this regard, the Commission would like to recall
that the Codex Standard provides that the name ‘sardines’ be exclusively reserved to fish of the species
Sardina Pilchardus Walbaum. The trade description of other species may include the name ‘sardine’ only if
accompanied by an appropriate qualifying term.

(1) OJ L 212, 22.7.1989.
(2) Codex STAN 94-1981, Rev 1-1985.

(2004/C 11 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2787/02

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Sugar

How will the Commission address questions of rules of origin, safeguard measures and supply side

1.
constraints on LDC production and export capacities in the coming Economic Partnership Agreements?

2. Would the Commission provide a detailed overview of the profit margins of the European sugar
industry (cid:1) on a country-by-country basis? The overview should include an assessment of the EU sugar
industry profit margins vis-à-vis other agricultural industries.

3.
As part of the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy, can the Commission provide a
breakdown of the profit margins (both with and without subsidies) of the major crops produced under the
CAP (wheat, barley, maize, rice, sugar etc)?

4.
Can the Commission provide a listing of new products from least developed countries imported into
the EU following the introduction of the Everything But Arms Initiative, which have benefited from the
elimination of duties under the EBA Initiative?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

1.
The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) will provide a stable and predictable framework on
rules of origin, based on the rules of origin and methods of administrative co-operation as defined in
Protocol No 1 of Annex V to the Cotonou Agreement. In the context of the EPA negotiations, the
Commission will assess any specific request for changes to the rules of origin, especially presented by the
African, Caribbean and Pacific group (ACP), aimed at improving current market access for the ACP or the
control of the scheme. The Union’s directives for the negotiations of EPAs states that the safeguard
provisions of the Cotonou Agreement (Articles 8-11 of Annex V) will apply,
in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the World Trade Organisation.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/17

Overcoming supply constraints is a central objective for EPAs. By removing obstacles to trade between the
ACP and the Union, EPAs will contribute to trade policy reforms within the ACP, introducing increased
openness and transparency and creating a more predictable policy framework. This will help to mobilise
economic operators and to attract investment. Certainly, development support will also be required. It is
therefore important to note that, despite their independent legal standing, the EPAs remain an integral part
of the Cotonou approach. To ensure that necessary trade and adjustment measures can be adequately
addressed, the programming exercise for the 9th European Development Fund (EDF), which is nearly
completed, has mainstreamed trade into development co-operation programmes, especially at the regional
level. Overall, programmes to be funded by the 9th EDF in the area of ACP regional integration and trade
capacity building currently amount to an estimated EUR 485 million. The mid-term and end-term reviews
foreseen by the Cotonou Agreement will pay particular attention to the coverage of EPA related
preparations.

The Commission has also agreed with individual ACP countries and regions a series of programmes to
meet trade capacity needs in the medium and long term. It is also actively engaged in export promotion
efforts in a number of ACP countries.

Further to this, there are also horizontal programmes, accessible to all ACP countries, which are designed
to strengthen export capacity. Two major examples are for the horticultural and fishery’s sectors, which
aim at assisting the ACP to align themselves with the requirements relating to sanitary and phytosanitary
standards for exporting these products.

A detailed overview of the profit margins of the European sugar industry (cid:1) on a country-by-country
2.
basis is not available at the present time. However, an external study is currently being undertaken in the
context of the reform of the common organisation of the market in sugar, which should cover these
issues.

3.
A breakdown of the profit margins (both with and without subsidies) of the major crops produced
under the common agricultural policy is not available at the present time and is under investigation within
the framework of the overall impact analysis of the mid term review communication.

Council Regulation (EC) No 416/2001 (1) sets out the products liberalised under the Everything But
4.
Arms (EBA) Initiative. Figures for 2001 of preferential imports under EBA have only been available since
September 2002 and as two years at least are necessary to objectively assess the impact of the EBA
initiative, it is too early to carry out an assessment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 416/2001 of 28 February 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a
multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to
extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least developed countries,
OJ L 60, 1.3.2001.

(2004/C 11 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: The Galicia-Portugal and Galicia-France-central Europe high-speed rail links

Can the Commission provide information on the state of progress,
in terms of both planning and
construction, on the proposed high-speed rail lines which are to link the main cities of Galicia with each
other and Galicia as a whole with Oporto and Lisbon in Portugal and with the European heartland via the
Iberian ‘meseta’ and France, given that the bulk of construction work on these links is planned for the
present programming period 2000-2006?

What is the level of Community funding allocated to these projects?

What are the expected completion dates for the various stretches of the planned lines?