WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/02 by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission. Ban on exports of EU certified organic products to the USA.
Date: 2002-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community certification, United States, export (EU), export restriction, harmonisation of standards, mutual recognition principle, organic product, technical barriers to trade

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/19

Can the European Commission clarify how it will explain to Irish citizens why their country received
2.
a warning earlier this year, while Germany, a ‘big’ Member State, did not and why now, for the second
time within a period of a few months, some ‘big’ Member States (cid:1) France and Italy (cid:1) will not have to
comply with their obligations under the Stability Pact, and can the European Commission confirm that a
twin-track policy is being pursued within the euro area, with the ‘big’ Member States being able to ignore
agreements but not the ‘little’ Member States?

3.
How can the European Commission’s current position be reconciled with the press release dated
14 May 2002 issued by Commissioner Solbes, in which he ‘urged the Member States … to make a last
effort to reach a close to balance by 2004. … Stability should become the acquis for the euro area and
Europe. … The process of budgetary consolidations needs to resume as soon as possible. Otherwise we
will be forever in a transition period and would be impossible to milk the full benefits of our economic
policy’. (sic)

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The statement of 24 September 2002 is in no way to be interpreted as a relaxation of the rules of the
Union fiscal framework. Rather, it emphasises the importance of strengthening the implementation of the
Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) in order to ensure the achievement of the objective of a balanced budget
position.
It aims at doing so by explicitly incorporating in this framework the effects of cyclical
developments on budgetary policy and by drawing the attention of Member States to the importance of a
forceful and swift action when divergences in the adjustment path or excessive deficits are identified. This
statement was also aimed at restoring confidence as it clarified key issues when confusing criticisms on the
working of the SGP were undermining the credibility of the Union’s fiscal framework. This framework
does serve the Union’s economies well as it helps to avert unsustainable fiscal positions and to maintain
inflation expectation to historic lows.

The press release dated 14 May 2002 can be reconciled with this statement in that Member States still in
deficit are urged to make considerable efforts to achieve balanced budgets. However, considering the actual
economic conditions, the required adjustment now to achieve the target by 2004 would have been too
high. Consistent with the May 2002 press release, these Member States are urged to resume consolidation
without delay but are, in addition, urged to commit to consolidate by at least an agreed minimum path of
structural adjustment, so that the transition period can finally be concluded by 2006 at the latest.

For its part, the Commission is confident that each actor will play its role in the system. Nevertheless, the
Commission will require full compliance by all Member States with their commitments under the EC
Treaty and the SGP thereby ensuring that no twin-track policy favouring any Member State is pursued. The
Commission will therefore activate the procedures foreseen by the EC Treaty and the SGP whenever
necessary. This is in line with past policy, as these procedures were triggered by the Commission already in
2001 when Ireland failed to respect the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) and in 2002 when
Germany and Portugal failed to meet the agreed budgetary target.

(2003/C 222 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/02

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Ban on exports of EU certified organic products to the USA

From 21 October 2002 it will apparently no longer be possible to export certified organic products from
Europe to the United States because organic product inspection and certification bodies must be accredited
with the US Department of Agriculture according to American production standards, which are seemingly
different from the European standards.

C 222 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

The accreditation procedure which has been initiated would seem to be a lengthy and costly bureaucratic
process and to involve a reorganisation of the specific procedures of inspection and certification bodies. To
date, no Italian inspection and certification body has obtained US accreditation. Will the Commission state
whether any action has been taken at European level with a view to concluding an agreement on
equivalence and mutual recognition of standards between the USA and Europe?

What is the Commission’s ‘European Organic Action Plan’ intended to achieve and what arrangements
have been made to ensure that people can rapidly obtain comprehensive information on the activities
carried out under the plan?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

On 21 October 2002, 18 months after its introduction, the National Organic Program (NOP), which is the
legal framework for organic farming in the United States, comes into force. The American authorities
indeed require that products from organic farming imported in the United States are certified by inspection
bodies accredited by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). A number of Community based
inspection bodies, including one that is recognized in Italy, have been accredited by the USDA so far and
several others are being evaluated.

On Community level, the Commission has been holding intensive technical discussions with the USDA.
These discussions form the basis for a possible equivalency agreement, in which case the overall regulatory
system of the Community on organic farming would be recognized as equivalent by the United States.

The USDA has declared it will apply a flexible approach for the transition after 21 October 2002, when
including crops planted
the NOP will come into force. Products already ‘in the stream of commerce’,
before 21 October 2002, will be treated as according to the procedures used previously.

As requested by the Council, the Commission is analysing the possibilities of a European action plan to
promote organic food and farming. The Commission is currently working on a Communication to the
Council and the Parliament that will be presented by December 2002.

(2003/C 222 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Discrimination between three bidders in the award of the contract for services on the high-speed

rail line in the Netherlands as a means of extorting a higher payment

1.
Is the Commission aware of the way in which the contract was awarded in the Netherlands for a
15-year concession to provide services on the Amsterdam (cid:1) Rotterdam (cid:1) Breda (cid:1) Antwerp high-speed
rail line, which will come into operation in 2006 as an extension of the existing high-speed line between
Paris North and Brussels South, in which three consortia were involved, namely 1. Nederlands Railways
(NS) and the airline KLM; 2. Deutsche Bahn and the British transport operator Arriva; 3. the Netherlands
regional transport operator Connexxion and the French conglomerate CGEA/Vivendi/Connex?

Can the Commission confirm that no equivalent assessment was made of the three bids for the
2.
contract because, in breach of the invitation to tender, negotiations were held only with the first bidder
and the two others were merely used to put further pressure on NS, which had had earlier rejected a
private offer, to agree to pay the State an amount of EUR 148 a year and, as a result, charge future
passengers very high fares?

3.
Does the Commission regard this state of affairs as complying with its proposal for a regulation on
action by Member States concerning public service requirements and the award of public service contracts
in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway [2000/0212 (COD)] of 26 July 2000 and with
the position adopted by the European Parliament at first reading on 4 November 2001 [2000/0212
(COD)-PE-1], in view of the fact that, although these two texts differ with regard to the public tender