WRITTEN QUESTION E-3659/03 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Free movement of goods and services.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, branch of activity, business administration, free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, single market, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 78 E/308

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0310)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3659/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Free movement of goods and services

Whilst I fully support the idea that the free movement of goods and services requires common European
rules and regulations governing large companies which export their products to other countries, does the
Commission not feel that some of the burden should be lifted from small companies with low turnovers
which operate locally and regionally within one Member State? Does the Commission have any idea of the
costs which such SMEs incur as a result of regulation of the single market and does the Commission have
any plans to exempt such companies, given that local knowledge is a sufficient safeguard of reliability to
the public?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission believes that the Internal Market offers considerable opportunities for small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs). It believes that in certain fields the lack of an integrated European regulatory
framework prevents SMEs from being able to grow and extend their activities across Internal Market
borders (1).

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member’s view that Internal Market harmonisation
should not give rise to excessive compliance costs. Internal Market harmonisation always has as its primary
objective the facilitation of free movement. Where national restrictions applied to incoming firms or
products are disproportionate, that free movement is achieved by applying the principle of mutual
recognition whereby the firm from the country of origin can supply its goods and services to the host
country on the basis of its own domestic rules. Such application of Internal Market principles does not add
to the business compliance burden. On the contrary,
it reduces it significantly since the cross-border
operator only has to work to one rather than two to fifteen (soon to be twenty five) sets of rules.

When Community harmonisation is required to protect, for example, consumers and the environment, it
must also comply with the principle of proportionality. In other words, it must take the form of provisions
that ensures the required high common level of protection in the least trade-restrictive manner. Such
harmonisation does not necessarily add new rules to national operators but typically modifies existing rules
such that they achieve their desired public interest objectives effectively whilst allowing for free movement.

the assessment of

In order to ensure that this principle of proportionality is adhered to, proper assessment of compliance
costs and administrative burdens of Community intervention is essential. Although the Commission has no
systematic information on compliance costs and administrative burdens relating to older Community
legislation,
these costs and burdens plays an important role in the new impact
assessment procedure put in place by the Commission (2). The new impact assessment procedure will
integrate into a single system all existing impact assessment mechanisms in the Commission, including the
business impact assessments which the Commission has conducted on its legislative proposals since 1986.
The new impact assessment procedure provides, for each proposal concerned, a systematic analysis of the
problem being addressed, the objective, the alternative options to reach the objective and their likely
impacts. Consultation of stakeholders including SMEs on major proposals will form an important part of
the process.

In conclusion, in pursuing the goal of achieving a smoothly functioning Internal Market, the Commission
aims to account fully for business compliance costs. The Commission, therefore, cannot agree with the
Honourable Member’s suggestion that small firms should be allowed to deviate from harmonisation
provisions seeking to attain the required high levels of protection of public interest objectives such as the

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/309

protection of public health, consumers or the environment. This would not only undermine the protection
of valid public interest objectives to the detriment of Union citizens but would also undermine trust and
confidence in the operations of Union SMEs in general.

(1)

For example, in its report on the State of the Internal Market in services [COM(2002) 441 final], the Commission
identified SMEs as the main victims of the current fragmented European regulatory framework.

(2) COM(2002) 278 final. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/suivi_lb_en.htm.

(2004/C 78 E/0311)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Botswanan beef, wildlife and sustainable development

It has been brought to my attention by a constituent that the Botswana Government is considering fencing
in areas of land in an effort to increase the country’s production of beef, most of which I understand is
intended for the EU. The impact on local wildlife, communities and the tourism industry would be huge.

Can the Commission confirm that this would go against the EU’s environmental and social standards, and,
given that the EU is a major importer of Botswanan beef, will
it put pressure on the authorities in
Botswana to reconsider their options?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission is aware both of the Government of Botswana’s intention to alter its existing network of
cattle/wildlife fences in Ngamiland, and of the recent developments on this matter. These would include
the erection of a new veterinary fence, with the purpose to extend the country area free from Foot and
Mouth Disease.

While, however, there is no direct link between the intended fences and the European Development Fund/
budget lines projects currently funded in Botswana, the Commission and its Delegation in Botswana,
conscious of the issues at stake, maintain contacts with the various stakeholders,
including the non-
governmental organisation ‘Environmental Investigation Agency’. There is also a regular dialogue with the
Government of Botswana in the area of conservation of natural resources.

The Botswana/DFID (Department for International Development, United Kingdom) funded ‘Environmental
assessment of veterinary fences in Ngamiland’ report outlines various technical options, and constitutes a
solid preliminary information base on environmental impact for the Okavango delta. To the Commission’s
knowledge, the Government of Botswana has not taken a decision on a particular option to follow; the
Commission however understands that a number of complementary studies (in particular on socio
economic impact) are planned by the Government of Botswana, following the report recommendations.
The Delegation expects that the matter will be resolved through the local consultations that have been re-
initiated, as well as by a policy dialogue between the Botswana stakeholders.

The importance of livestock for the livelihoods of Ngamiland cannot be underplayed. It should be noted
that, unlike other Southern African countries, most Botswana meat for export comes from smallholders,
who benefit from Foot and Mouth Disease control even if no exports are taking place. Foot and Mouth
Disease control has therefore a positive impact on poverty alleviation. The control is possible through a
range of techniques, the erection of fences (with different modalities) being one of them.