WRITTEN QUESTION P-3522/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Specific import tariffs on photographic products for the People's Republic of China.
Date: 2003-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, Dispute Settlement Body, common commercial policy, customs duties, market access, photographic industry, trade relations, trade restriction

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/573

The evaluation at present available to the Commission is for the previous programming period
(1994-1999). That Community-level evaluation analysed whether the policy objectives defined in the
relevant Regulations were achieved, and uses the national ex-post evaluation reports to support and
illustrate the analysis.

The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (1) measures for improvement of agricultural
structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation:

(cid:1) the support system for the less-favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the

impact of natural disadvantages on production costs,

(cid:1) the lack of a common, standard definition of support in these areas may, however, be a factor
explaining the undercompensation in some of them and the overcompensation in some of those
where the handicap is small or even insignificant compared to the ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the
Member State concerned.

3.
The quality of the evaluations made at national level is ensured by applying the relevant common
rules specifying the scope of the evaluations and how they are to be carried out (Articles 54 to 57 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (2)). Those rules also require common evaluation questions to
be defined and a common structure for the reports to be followed.

Under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (3), by 1 January 2005 Member States
4.
must define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental
conditions on the basis of Annex IV to that Regulation, taking into account the specific characteristics of
the areas concerned, including soil and climatic conditions. Those standards will facilitate implementation
of good farming practice as defined in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002, entailing, as a
minimum, compliance with the general mandatory environmental requirements.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures, OJ L 142,

2.6.1997.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance
and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending
Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94,
(EC) No 1251/1999,
(EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001,
OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

(EC) No 1673/2000,

(EC) No 1254/1999,

(2004/C 78 E/0607)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3522/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2003)

Subject: Specific import tariffs on photographic products for the People’s Republic of China

In March 2003 I put a written question to the Commission on the import tariffs that the People’s Republic
of China is imposing on photographic products (E-1289/03 (1)).

In its answer to these questions the Commission includes the comment that the application of specific
duties on photographic products in China has in several cases led to higher duties than the consolidated ad
valorem rate. In response to this finding the Commission has raised the problem both bilaterally with the
Chinese authorities and in the context of the WTO Transitional Review Mechanism. As a result the
Chinese authorities have undertaken to make the Commission request
the subject of a thorough
investigation.

C 78 E/574

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

1.

Has the Commission yet received the results from the Chinese authorities?

If not, what further steps has the Commission taken in this regard over the past six months to obtain

2.
the results concerned?

3. What action is the Commission taking to enforce the application of the correct tariffs at the earliest
possible time?

(1) See page 27.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission took the action to which the Honourable Member refers as a result of the matter being
it has not contacted the
raised with the Commission by the European industry in 2002. However,
Commission again since January 2003 when China introduced new tariffs.

No reference was made to the issue by the Member States consulted for the purpose of identifying the EU’s
priorities in trade with China, in particular as regards China’s implementation of its commitments to the
World Trade Organisation.

In view of the above and the many priority trade issues facing European businesses in China, the
Commission has not prioritised this question.

The Commission would be grateful for any further details which the Honourable Member can provide in
order to raise the matter again with the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has been informed that this matter is in fact a priority for Japan, whose industry has
apparently suffered more than the EU’s from the system of specific duties introduced by China.

(2004/C 78 E/0608)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/03

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Proposed new livestock transport regulations

1. Were the Commission officials responsible for drafting the proposed new livestock transport
regulations trained in animal husbandry, practical livestock handling or veterinary science?

2.
Does the Commission accept that the reduction of maximum journey times for livestock from
14 hours to 9 hours with a mandatory 12-hour rest period will, in fact, significantly extend journey times
and therefore add to stress of travelling animals? On what scientific evidence are these recommendations
based?

Has the Commission carried out a cost analysis to ascertain the additional headage cost per animal

3.
that the new regulations will incur and which will have to be paid by farmers?

Has the Commission analysed the likely impact on jobs in terms of existing hauliers who may go out

4.
of business rather than attempt to meet the new regulatory standards?

5.

How does the Commission intend water to be made available to livestock in floats?