WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Reform of the support system for ACP banana producers.
Date: 2004-01-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, Côte d'Ivoire, aid system, production aid, tropical fruit

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/663

As foreseen in the project description of the Social Inclusion project (BG0102.06), a Project Steering
Committee has been set up by the Contracting Authority for the overall co-ordination of the project. It is
the Contracting Authority which has the exclusive responsibility to convene this Committee. The Steering
Committee composition is stipulated in the Project Fiche that is published on all relevant websites (3). It
includes relevant ministries and agencies as well as the Bulgarian Industrial Association, the Bulgarian
Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of the Trade Unions in Bulgaria, the ‘Podkrepa’ Trade Union,
the Union of People with Disabilities in Bulgaria, the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues
and the Commission Delegation, Sofia.

The names of the members of the Evaluation Committee, including assessors, are not made public. The
Commission is not in a position to confirm that any particular member of the Evaluation Committees was
at the same time involved in some of the individual projects funded under BG0102.06.

As is general practice for PHARE projects which assist the Roma minority, it is ensured that these are
implemented in close co-operation with Roma representatives. The Commission maintains the position it
gave in its reply to the Honourable Member’s written question E-1647/03 (4), namely that proper
involvement of Roma and their representative organisations in identification of the needs, the project
design preparation and implementation is crucial to the success of such projects.

The Commission has not been approached by the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues nor
by the Ministry of Culture concerning any decisions as referred to in written question E-4011/03.

The contracting period under the project Social
Inclusion has expired. Any remaining commitment
appropriations can therefore not be utilised. Any unspent payment appropriations will need to be returned
to the Community budget. However, the Commission will continue to support social inclusion in Bulgaria
under pre-accession aid and organisations not successful this time will, of course, be able to apply for any
future projects of a similar nature. Each project will be judged on its own merits.

The Commission regrets that it is not in a position to verify or review general allegations as reported by
the Honourable Member since these relate to tender procedures carried out by the Bulgarian authorities.
The Commission is, however, determined to ensure transparent and correct allocation of funds and to
assure that any substantiated and documented information of fraudulent or corrupt practices would be
duly followed up, wherever these occur.

The Civil society development project (BG 0104.03) on which the Honourable Member also poses
questions has no link to the Social Inclusion Project. It is a programme targeting development of non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and is managed by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (neither the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues nor the Ministry of Culture are
involved in this project). The Commission has received no evidence of any wrongdoing by any member of
the Delegation staff. The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the co-operation between
the Commission’s Delegation and the Parliamentary committee on civil society at the Bulgarian National
Assembly is very close and productive.

(1) See also http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/fiche_projet/document/bg0102-06-social_inclusion.pdf
(2) http://www.mrrb.government.bg/pdocs/doc_618.htm
(3)
(4) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 378.

For instance http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/fiche_projet/index.cfm?page=399702&c=BULGARIA&a=2001

(2004/C 88 E/0681)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Reform of the support system for ACP banana producers

It became clear during the debate held at Parliament’s part-session in September 2003 on the report on the
special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas (A5-0164/2003) that the current

C 88 E/664

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

support system for banana producers in the ACP countries fails to meet the most basic requirements as
regards transparency and objectivity, and that banana producers in Côte d’Ivoire are unacceptably placed at
a disadvantage.

When will the Commission propose the necessary amendments to the rules in force?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The individual amounts being allocated annually to each traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
banana supplier are calculated in accordance with the criteria set out in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1609/1999 (1). In particular, the cost, insurance, freight (CIF) price as shown in the Eurostat statistics is
used as a benchmark to measure the competitiveness gap between ACP and third countries suppliers,
whereas the importance of the banana sector in the economy of the countries concerned is reflected by
fixed calculation factors listed in the Commission Regulation. This calculation basis is uniform for all
beneficiaries and thereby ensures transparency and objectivity.

Recently representatives of the banana growers on the Ivory Coast have approached the Commission and
expressed their concern about the method used when establishing the relevant data on import into the
Community. The Commission is looking further into the matter and will also be discussing the issue with
the Member States’ customs administrations in the near future.

This has been communicated to the banana growers organisation on the Ivory Coast (OCAB) in recent
correspondence.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 establishing a special framework of assistance to traditional ACP suppliers
of bananas, OJ L 190, 23.7.1999.

(2004/C 88 E/0682)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3992/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE)
and Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Presentation of the peer review on the Kozloduy nuclear power plant

Referring to the letter from the President of Bulgaria, Mr Parvanov, to the Council and the Commission
dated 24 October 2002 requesting a safety peer review of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant’s units 3 and
4, and bearing in mind that the Terms of Reference (TOR) for that review were issued to the Commission
on 28 January 2003, recalling that the peer review then took place on 16 and 17 November 2003, can
the Commission now confirm that no more time will be wasted in conveying the expected positive results
of the review to both Council and the Bulgarian Government with a recommendation that the closure
demand for the said units, now having no technical or economic justification, be withdrawn and that no
pre-condition of plant closure should exist with regard to the accession of Bulgaria to the European
Union?

(2004/C 88 E/0683)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3993/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE)
and Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Review of the closure dates for the Kozloduy nuclear power plant units

Given that the agreement dated 29 November 1999 between the Council and the Bulgarian Government
(brought about by the Commission) to close four units of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant as a condition
of Bulgaria’s accession to the EU was based on 10-year-old criteria, and given that, in 2002, the IAEA
declared that these units ‘now correspond to the level of improvements seen at plants of similar vintage