WRITTEN QUESTION E-1628/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council. Promoting fair-trade products in the EU.
Date: 2003-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: developing countries, development policy, fair trade, price formation, prices policy, public awareness campaign, supply and demand, trade cooperation

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/55

In the vast majority of cases, producers are unable to market their eggs as hatching eggs; rather, they can
sell them only as eggs for consumption, which have a much lower market value.

1.

Does the Commission see any way of supporting producers who have been badly affected?

How, more specifically, does the Commission view the possibility of establishing rules for buying-in

2.
hatching eggs?

How does the Commission intend to deal

in the longer term with the serious economic and
3.
secondary harm to those indirectly hit by such outbreaks of animal diseases? Is the Commission prepared
to consider setting up largely privately funded systems to insure against such losses throughout the
European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

1.
The Netherlands may obtain a financial contribution from the Community, by means of veterinary
funds, of 50 % of eligible expenditure for the compensation of farmers for the compulsory culling of
animals and the compulsory destruction of eggs under eradication measures related to outbreaks of Avian
Influenza.

The Member State concerned, under National Aid Scheme can establish a buying-up policy related to
2.
poultry and eggs in restriction zones, provided that such scheme comply with community rules for
national aid in agriculture.

3.
The Commission has already emphasized insurance policies as a potential mean to deal with indirect
losses caused by large outbreaks of animal diseases. A study supported by the Commission is currently
being finalized on this issue.

(2004/C 70 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1628/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 May 2003)

Subject: Promoting fair-trade products in the EU

During Fair Trade Week, which begins on 3 May, campaigners in Finland will draw attention to fair-trade
products and seek to persuade members of churches, among others, to increase their use of fair-trade
coffee.

In reply to my written question P-3856/02 of 24 January 2003 (1), Commissioner Pascal Lamy wrote:
‘In the long run, however, only a sustained trend of increased demand for fair trade products by European
consumers is likely to lead to large reductions in prices [of fair-trade products].’

Has the Council considered or does it intend to consider possibilities of promoting demand for fair-trade
products by publicising European Fair Trade Week (3-9 May) in the Member States?

Will the Council promote demand for fair-trade products by means of public procurement in the Member
States?

(1) See page 26.

C 70 E/56

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Reply

(8 December 2003)

Poverty reduction is the overarching goal of EC’s development policy. At its November 2002 meeting,
the Council (GAERC) adopted its conclusions on Trade and Development, where it recognised that trade
liberalisation in itself is not sufficient to combat poverty in developing countries and it stressed the need
for balanced trade rules that benefit all countries, with particular attention to the least developed countries.

The Council
is both aware and deeply concerned about the long-term decline of the prices of most
commodities and is taking care of this issue in the context of a joint reflection with the Commission on
the basis of a recent Commission paper on Agriculture Commodity Trade, Dependence and Poverty which
deals inter alia with the potential of mainstreaming fair trade.

The Council welcomes fair trade insofar as it gives producers in developing countries higher revenues for
their goods as well as increased opportunities to find new markets. In so doing, fair trade aims to
contribute to establishing the conditions that can foster a higher level of social and environmental
protection in developing countries.

Currently, the only fair trade products that have 4 % or more of the market within the EC are bananas in
the Netherlands (4,2 %) and Luxembourg (4 %). Fair trade coffee consumption is increasing but still remains
very limited. Total turnover for all fair trade goods in Europe is estimated to be around EUR 260 million.
Fair trade products are typically 5 % to10 % more expensive than equivalent conventional products. In
addition, the movement is a largely European phenomenon. In the US it is virtually unknown (cid:1) e.g. fair
trade coffee accounts for only 0,15 % of their market.

Thus the potential for expansion globally exists, but closing the gap between the intentions of the
consumers and their actual behaviour is likely to require time and would have to pass through a wider
presence and recognition of these products by the consumers. European Fair Trade Week should therefore
be actively supported.

The Council considers that promoting the demand for fair-trade products is part of a wider scenario of
corporate social responsibility. At the ICO/World Bank Round Table on the Coffee Crisis held in London
on 19 May 2003, the EC suggested inter alia encouraging private industry to invest in long-term relations
with suppliers, based on mutual benefit, through the introduction of codes of conduct for the purchase of
coffee, in which fair prices should be one of the essential elements.

Finally, the Council has welcomed the Commission’s intention to present a general review of the EU’s
trade-related assistance in 2005. This review should be an appropriate occasion to consider possible ways
to foster the consumption of fair-trade products.

(2004/C 70 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1705/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Investigations into Planistat Europe SA

On 19 March 2003, the European Anti-Fraud Office. OLAF, filed charges against Planistat Europe SA with
the Paris Public Prosecutor. The company was accused of being involved in fraudulent activities which
adversely affected the Community budget.