WRITTEN QUESTION E-2786/02 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission. Sugar.
Date: 2002-10-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common commercial policy, economic consequence, economic statistics, import policy, least-developed country, originating product, tariff preference, technical barriers to trade, trade by product

C 268 E/14

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

Council Report on Nuclear Safety in the Context of Enlargement, held the view that this evaluation
exercise did ‘not lead to any transfer of competencies from the Member States to the Community’. In this
report, Member State experts confirmed the need for firm closure commitments in view of existing
deviations from safety requirements and practices widely applied within the Union.

(1) http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st09/09181-a1en1.pdf.

(2003/C 268 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Commission reports on Iranian opposition organisations

Can the Commission confirm that it drew up a report on 18 March this year entitled ‘Commission report
on the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq’?

Did the Commission decide to invoke any of the exceptions mentioned in Article 4 of Regulation (EC)
No 1049/2001 (1)?

If not, can it say why it did not distribute the report electronically?

Can the Commission supply a copy of the report or, if not, explain why it cannot?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission has not drawn up a written report on the subject of the ‘Mujahedin-e-Khalq’ (MKO). The
issue of invoking any of the exceptions mentioned in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has not
arisen.

The Commission was asked by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and
Defence Policy, to make an intervention on the subject MKO at its meeting of 19 March 2002. At this
meeting a representative of the Commission gave a brief oral presentation which provided a general
background for the debate on the MKO.

It is worth recalling that under the Common Position adopted by the Council on 27 December 2001 (1),
the Council in its review of May 2002 decided to include the MKO on the list of organisations whose
funds shall be frozen.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2003/C 268 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2786/02

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Sugar

1. Would the Commission provide a detailed assessment of the impact on trade flows from LDCs to the
EU in the areas where tariffs were reduced under the Everything But Arms Initiative. The assessment
should include trade flows one year before and at least one year after implementation of the Everything
But Arms Initiative started. Finally, would the Commission state whether the impact on LDC trade flows is
considered satisfactory?

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/15

2. Would the Commission provide a detailed assessment of the impact on sugar trade flows from LDCs
to the EU since LDCs were given quota-restricted access over a transitional period as part of the Everything
But Arms Initiative. The assessment should include trade flows one year before and at least one year after
implementation of the Everything But Arms Initiative started?

3. Would the Commission give a general assessment of the economic benefits for the LDCs as a
consequence of the implementation of the Everything But Arms Initiative?.

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

4.
constraints on LDC production and export capacities in the Everything But Arms Initiative?

5. Would the Commission give an overview of
the measures being implemented to improve
administrative procedures regarding LDC exports, in particular in the area of value-added food products?

(2003/C 268 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2879/02

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: The ‘Everything but arms’ initiative

Can the European Commission provide:

(cid:1) a list of the product tariff lines (at the four digit level) where the introduction of the ‘Everything but

arms’ initiative resulted in the elimination of tariffs on goods exported by LDCs;

(cid:1) a comparison of the quarterly imports (in value and volume terms) of each of these products for the

18 months before and after the introduction of the ‘Everything but arms’ initiative;

(cid:1) its own assessment of the impact on trade flows and economic benefits for the LDCs as a consequence

of the implementation of the ‘Everything but arms’ Initiative?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2786/02 and E-2879/02
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

The ‘Everything but arms’ Initiative (EBA) was adopted,
in February 2001, as an amendment to the
Generalised Scheme of Tariff Preferences (GSP) Regulation (1) in force at that time. Prior to EBA, the GSP
Regulation already provided special arrangements for least-developed countries (LDCs) under which they
enjoyed virtually the same preferences as under the Cotonou agreement.

By granting duty and quota free access for all products (except arms), EBA fully liberalised with immediate
effect a total of 1 073 tariff lines. All these tariff lines are agricultural products, except 19, which refer to
industrial products. However, EBA did not immediately liberalise imports of sugar, rice, and bananas. This
concerns a total number of 43 tariff lines, for which EBA provides duty free quotas during the transition
period.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.

As 2001 figures for 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 of the impact on trade flows from LDCs to the Union.