WRITTEN QUESTION E-3735/02 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Quotas and the survival of the Caribbean banana industry.
Date: 2002-12-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, common organisation of markets, import (EU), market intervention, price reduction, tariff quota, tropical fruit

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/133

Can the Commission confirm that construction of the wind-turbine farm should have been subjected to an
environmental impact assessment in accordance with Community legislation (Directive 97/11/EC (1)), and
can the Commission confirm that such an assessment was in fact carried out in the case of Windpark
Rhede?

Does the Commission agree, given the location in close proximity to the Netherlands-German border, that
such an environmental impact assessment should also have assessed the project’s cross-border impact, in
particular disruption to cross-border residents, and not have been confined to the territory of the Member
State in which it was to be built? Can it state whether that was carried out correctly, and what action it is
now taking?

Does the Commission consider that Windpark Rhede is causing intolerable disruption to the residents of
Bellingwolde that could have been prevented if Community law had been correctly implemented?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

According to Article 4 (1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC of
3 March 1997, projects listed in Annex I of the Directive have to be made subject to an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA). According to Article 4(2) of the Directive, projects listed in Annex II only have to
be made subject to an EIA where Member States, through a case-by-case examination or on the basis of
national thresholds or criteria, determine that their circumstances characteristics so require. According to
Article 4(3) and Annex III of the amended EIA Directive, the relevant selection criteria should include, inter
alia, the characteristics of the project, its location, and its potential impact, including the transfrontier
nature of the impact. The latter shows that, in case an EIA has to be carried out, possible transfrontier
effects of a project have to be taken into consideration. Article 7 of the amended EIA-Directive even
provides for transboundary consultations and transboundary public participation where a project is likely
to have significant negative effects on the environment in another Member State or where a Member State
likely to be significantly affected so requests.

Wind farms (‘installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production’) are listed in Annex II
in
point 3 (i) of the amended EIA-Directive. Consequently, it is for the Member States to determine,
accordance with the selection criteria listed in Annex III of the Directive, whether and in which cases the
construction of wind energy plants has to be made subject to an EIA.

The Environment Directorate-General received a complaint letter from a Dutch citizen concerning the
same issue on 3 December 2002.

At this point in time, the Commission does not have sufficient information to decide whether or not
Germany has correctly applied the requirements of the EIA-Directive in the case at hand. The Commission
does not even know whether or not an EIA was carried out before the wind energy plants were authorised
and constructed. The Commission will therefore ask the German Government to provide more detailed
information on the case.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2003/C 161 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3735/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Quotas and the survival of the Caribbean banana industry

In June 2002 the ACP Council of Ministers meeting sent a resolution to the European Parliament, Council
and Commission which drew attention to the fact that the new banana regime had ‘resulted in prices

C 161 E/134

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

plummeting to levels which threaten to displace ACP suppliers, most of whom have no alternative
markets’ and were ‘already creating tremendous social and economic dislocation and eroding the
achievements in the fight against poverty’.

This problem results from the implementation of phase 2 of the EU-US Agreement which transfers
100 000 tonnes of quota from ACP (quota C) suppliers to dollar (quota B) suppliers, which effectively
increased the total volume of bananas entering the market by 100 000 tonnes, enabling EU supermarkets
to pursue a highly competitive price policy.

Will the Commission implement a temporary reduction in the B quota (dollar supplies)
in order to
eliminate excess supplies that are depressing prices, and, if not, what steps does the Commission intent to
take in support of ACP suppliers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that in 2002 the Community banana market
displayed a satisfactory quantitative balance that was reflected in smooth price movements. As happens
every year, prices began to fall at the beginning of the second half, with a steepening of the downward
trend during September and October. But the situation strongly improved with a big price upswing from
the end of November. In particular the price of ACP bananas rose by 58 % between week 46 (mid-
November) and week 51 (end of December) and at the end of 2002 reached their highest level at that
season for five years. The outlook for the coming months is positive and the market should display a
satisfactory balance in 2003. It can justly be said that the Community market continues to be a profitable
one for banana-producing countries, including the ACP ones.

The Commission can also point out that the agreements concluded with the United States and Ecuador
allowed the trade dispute that had lasted for several years to be ended and authorised opening of a tariff
quota reserved for ACP bananas. Moreover,
in November 2001 the Union succeeded in obtaining
derogations at WTO level guaranteeing the ACP banana-producing countries preferential access to the
Community market.

Lastly, it must be remembered that the common market organisation for bananas has no price guarantee
arrangement. Banana price formation, and sometimes the volatility of that price, is the expression of a
market dynamic with which the Commission has no power to interfere. The size of tariff quotas can be
adjusted to secure market supply only in cases where a shortfall of bananas from one of the various origins
arises. In that event the only power the Commission has is to increase the quantities to be imported under
the unbound tariff quota (quota B). The rules in force give it no authority to reduce the size of tariff
quotas, nor would lower prices on the Community market be an adequate ground for proposing a tariff
quota reduction.

(2003/C 161 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3739/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Increases in Commissioners’ income without a legal basis

In the answer to my Written Question P-1233/02 (1), Mr Kinnock, Commission Vice-President, confirmed
on behalf of the Commission that Commissioners have profited for years from increases in income by
having a proportion of their salaries not paid into accounts at their place of employment, Brussels, but,
rather, transferred to other EU states, taking advantage of so-called weightings for that purpose.