WRITTEN QUESTION P-0841/04 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Female sexual mutilation.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, action programme, agreement (EU), cooperation policy, public awareness campaign, right to physical integrity, sexual mutilation, women's rights

C 88 E/712

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Plant Health in March 2004, the Commission presented to
the Member States a draft decision on temporary emergency measures in respect of certain citrus fruits
originating in Argentina or Brazil. This draft decision corresponds to the ‘specific import protocol’ to
which the Honourable Member refers.

The main aspects of this draft decision, which was approved by the meeting of the Standing Committee
and now has to be adopted by the Commission, can be summarised as follows: The fruits of Citrus L.,
Fortunella Swingle, Poncirus Raf. and their hybrids (hereinafter referred to as ‘citrus fruits’) originating in
Argentina or Brazil may be imported into the Community territory only if they comply with certain
specific requirements, which take the form of two options:

(cid:1) either they originate in an area recognised as being free from Xanthomonas campestris and

Guignardia citricarpa, which must be mentioned on the plant health certificate,

(cid:1) or, as evidenced by an official inspection, no symptoms of either disease have been observed in the
place of production since the beginning of the last cycle of vegetation, and the place of production,
packing facilities, exporters and any other operator involved in the handling of the fruits are officially
registered for this purpose. In addition to these two conditions, an additional requirement applies in
the case of Xanthomonas campestris, namely that fruits harvested in the place of production are free
inspection and examination including
from this harmful organism, as evidenced by an official
appropriate tests, and the fruits must have been subjected to appropriate treatment, which must be
mentioned on the plant health certificate.

Furthermore, the citrus fruits concerned may be imported into the Community only if they originate from
a production system which ensures their traceability from the place of production to the point of export to
the Community. Information on this system must be made available to the Commission.

Finally, each Member State importing citrus fruits originating in Argentina or Brazil must provide the
Commission and the other Member States with a detailed technical report on the results of plant health
checks carried out on those fruits. The Commission will continually follow the development of the
situation throughout the 2004 export season. If these emergency measures are not sufficient to prevent the
entry of the diseases concerned into the Community, or if they have not been complied with, the
Commission might introduce more stringent or alternative measures in accordance with the plant health
legislation in force (Article 16, paragraph 3, of Directive 2000/29/EC (1)).

The Commission feels that the proposed measures are suitable with regard to limiting, as far as possible,
the entry of quarantine pests and diseases of citrus fruit into the European Union.

There are, however, no plans for Food and Veterinary Office inspectors to carry out checks at origin.
However, the FVO might consider organising an inspection mission to the two countries concerned in the
near future in order to check on the conditions under which the citrus fruits in question are produced and
exported to the Community and on how the new scheme established by the above-mentioned draft
decision is applied.

Finally, there are no plans to designate specific European ports for specialised inspections of fruits and
vegetables from third countries.

(1) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community
of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, OJ L 169,
10.7.2000, as most recently amended by Commission Directive 2003/116/EC, OJ L 321, 6.12.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0733)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0841/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Female sexual mutilation

More than a hundred million women in the world have suffered severe sexual mutilation, and every year
two and a half million fall victim to various barbaric acts that kill huge numbers of teenage girls. In the

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/713

European Union mutilation of this kind, which seriously disables women both physically and mentally, is
spreading at an increasingly alarming rate. This situation is totally contrary to the rules on human rights
and dignity of the individual and to every law governing protection and inviolability of the human person.

Why has 8 March not been dedicated to the fight to eradicate female sexual mutilation?

Furthermore, why has no directive yet been issued to lay down rules prohibiting female sexual mutilation
and providing for proper education on the subject, especially for immigrants from countries where such
customs are still permitted?

Lastly, why has no provision been made for trade and cooperation agreements to include a binding clause
obliging the governments of the countries concerned to combat the spread of female sexual mutilation on
their territory?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission and the international community have recognised female genital mutilation (FGM) as a
profound violation of the human rights of women. (Beijing Platform of Action and Convention against all
Forms of Discrimination against Women).

However, only in three European countries (cid:1) Sweden, the United Kingdom and Norway- are there specific
laws prohibiting all or some forms of the practice of female genital mutilation. Sweden introduced its
relevant legislation as far back as 1982. The United Kingdom outlawed the practice in 1985 by passing the
Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act. Norway followed the example of these countries in 1998. In the
rest of the Member States, there are only general laws prohibiting serious bodily injury without making
specific reference to female genital mutilation.

Pursuing and defending the values of the Union which are built around justice, equality between women
and men and human rights is an essential task of the Commission. Therefore, it cannot tolerate, within the
Union’s borders or elsewhere in the world, practices such as female genital mutilation, which do not
belong in modern society and which, in particular, subjugate women.

The Commission holds the view that female genital mutilation will only disappear if people, including
women, become convinced that they can give up the practice without giving up the related aspects of their
culture. To this end, the Commission considers that multifaceted strategies are needed, including actions
directed at the education of health and social workers. The dissemination of appropriate information
emphasising the dangerous health consequences is another important tool.

The Commission’s Daphne programme to combat violence against children, young people and women
(2000-2003) made FGM a priority in its annual programme (and call for proposals) for two consecutive
years in 2001 and 2002. This resulted in the funding of ten projects on this specific subject, of which six
are for a two-year duration, which means that these actions will tackle the subject in depth. These actions
represent European funding of more than EUR 1,6 million.

Using the Daphne programme to combat this phenomenon assists grassroots level organisations to
collaborate with each other, but also with the academic world and the authorities, to tackle this problem in
the field and, most of the time, with the direct involvement of the victims. The Daphne II programme
(2004-2008) will be approved soon and will pursue this combat.

The overall international theme for 8 March (International Women’s Day) is chosen by the United Nations.
The Commission also chooses a specific theme for 8 March each year: in 2003 this was female genital
mutilation, but there are no plans to repeat the same theme each year.

C 88 E/714

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

On a global basis the vast majority of genital mutilations are performed in developing countries and not in
Europe. The Commission recognises this and in Part III of the Cotonou Agreement, which deals with
Cooperation Strategies, requires that special attention is paid to:
integrating population issues into
development strategies in order to improve reproductive health, primary health care, family planning; and
prevention of female genital mutilation (Article 25.1.c). In our negotiations with African, Caribbean and
Pacific (ACP) countries we raise priorities related to sexual and reproductive health and rights, including
FGM, and will continue to do so. Many countries are already taking steps to outlaw the practice of FGM (cid:1)
including putting appropriate legislation in place, and setting up appropriate educational programmes. The
Commission believes that an approach based on dialogue and cooperation is the appropriate approach,
and does not think that a binding clause in trade and cooperation agreements obliging countries to take
action would be helpful.

(2004/C 88 E/0734)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0853/04

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject: New Regulation on sugar export and dispatch from outermost regions

I am led to understand that the Commission put to the consideration of the Management Committee for
Exchanges on 20 January a proposal for amending Commission regulation (EC) No 20/2002 (1) concerning
export and dispatch authorisations from the outermost regions of products included in the POSEI regimes
(regimes for the development of local farm products and some food supply).

In this a large number of products are considered in the case of Madeira, although Madeira does not have
an indigenous sugar production or refinery.

However, the Azores, which have an active sugar production and refinery industry, will be forbidden from
exporting to the US and Canada (their traditional markets) or dispatching to European ones their local and
artisan products using local sugar, like liqueurs, dairy products and marmalades.

Would you agree with the previous public declarations of a Member of the European Parliament, who
represents the Azores, that there is a continuing attitude by the Commission of bias against the Azorean
sugar facilities?

Could you confirm if Madeira is normally supplied through branches or associates of British Sugar?

Could you confirm that a subsidiary of British Sugar attempted and failed to acquire a controlling interest
in the sole sugar producer and refiner of the Azores?

(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

On 16 March we adopted Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 (1) amending Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 laying
down detailed rules for implementing the specific supply arrangements for the outermost regions
introduced by Council Regulations (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001 and (EC) No 1454/2001.

This Regulation completes our review of the 2001 POSEI arrangements. It specifies the terms on which
products that have undergone processing in the French and Portuguese outermost regions can be exported
in the regional trade context.