WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/04 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Common external tariffs.
Date: 2004-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CCT duties, EU Member State, agricultural product, anti-dumping duty, import, trade statistics

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/543

Since the regions do not possess their own financial resources to combat the poverty, they have to rely on
the transfer of capital and on development work from abroad.

In the light of the precarious situation in East Africa, will the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether there already are Commission-assisted building projects for East Africa covering all the

technical fields in construction and architecture, or

(cid:1) whether any are planned?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The European Union’s development policy since November 2000 has focused on poverty reduction and
has three priority areas of cooperation: economic development, social and human development,
integration and regional cooperation.

Under this approach priorities are set on a country-by-country basis and the principle of channelling
resources to one or two focal sectors is a key element of cooperation. The part played by construction in
this cooperation varies in each individual case, but it is impossible to estimate the value of all the
assistance we have provided in this area as it forms part of broader programmes.

The majority of building projects are in two priority sectors: health and education, but other sectors also
receive aid for the rehabilitation of infrastructure to underpin broader-based programmes. The European
Development Fund (EDF) finances building and rehabilitation of health infrastructure ranging from small
health centres to referral hospitals. In the education sector the EDF provides assistance for the setting-up
and rehabilitation of primary classes,
In the 1990s alone,
EUR 150 million was provided for health infrastructure in all African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
countries and accounted for some 30 % of EDF resources for the health sector. Examples include the
building of two 250-bed hospitals at a total cost of EUR 23 million each in Malawi, and, in the same
region, the decision taken by the Commission on 17 February this year to finance the rehabilitation of the
National Assembly’s buildings and the construction of a building for the Supreme Court and the Ministry
of Justice in Rwanda at a cost of EUR 8 million. The implementation of this financing demonstrates
Rwanda’s determination to move towards the rule of law and good governance with the European Union’s
active support.

technical colleges and universities.

All these projects are designed according to the highest standard by specialised EU and local consultants
which include architects, engineers and surveyors.

Projects are awarded to public works companies following invitations to tender. Because they are typically
low technology and low cost compared,
to road projects, most building projects are
undertaken by local companies and this increases their socio-economic impact.

for example,

(2004/C 88 E/0555)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject: Common external tariffs

Further to the Written Question P-0472/04 (1) by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and the answer given by
Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission on 5 March 2004:

1. What was the value in 2002 of imports of agricultural products from outside EU-15 (by total and by
Member State) on which aggregated agricultural duties of EUR 1,18 billion (before collection costs)
were charged?

C 88 E/544

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

2. What was the value in 2002 of imports of non-agricultural products from outside EU-15 (by total and
by Member State) on which aggregated import duties of EUR 12,92 billion (before collection costs)
were charged?

3. What was the value in 2002 of imports of goods from outside EU-15 (by total and broken down by
Member State) which were partially or totally exempted from import duties; and what were the three
most important categories, by value of goods imported, so exempted?

4. Do ‘agricultural duties’ and ‘import duties’ as set out in the Written Answer of 5 March 2004 include

‘anti-dumping duties’?

5.

If ‘anti-dumping duties’ were charged in 2002, what was their overall value, and which were the three
most important categories, by value of goods imported, subject to such duties?

(1) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 594.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Further to the written question P-0472/04 by the Honourable Member and the answer given by
Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission on 5 March 2004:

1.

Please find below the breakdown by Member State of agricultural duties (i.e.
import duties on
agricultural products) recorded in the EU-15 accounts in 2002 and of the corresponding imports of
agricultural products on which these duties were collected (i.e. imports for the period November 2001
to October 2002 on which duties were paid (cid:1) with a two-month delay (cid:1) in the period January 2002
to December 2002).

EU-15

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

Agricultural duties

(million euros)

Imports
of agricultural products on which
agricultural duties were charged

1 180,3

10 933,8

22,9

7,4

144,2

12,0

38,1

132,6

0,7

72,6

0,2

201,8

10,8

20,4

3,7

14,7

498,2

479,8

94,9

1 789,9

293,9

1 171,9

731,5

102,4

1 532,8

4,7

1 249,2

293,0

407,1

56,6

184,8

2 541,3

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/545

2.

import duties on non-
Please find below the breakdown by Member State of customs duties (i.e.
agricultural products) recorded in the EU accounts in 2002 and of the corresponding imports of non-
agricultural products on which these duties were collected (i.e. imports for the period November 2001
to October 2002 on which duties were paid (cid:1) with a two-month delay (cid:1) in the period January 2002
to December 2002).

EU-15

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

Customs duties

12 917,5

1 346,2

258,5

2 743,2

173,2

887,7

1 178,1

135,4

1 290,7

16,7

1 340,5

208,9

123,0

98,7

348,0

2 768,7

(million euros)

Imports
of non-agricultural products on which
customs duties were charged

426 028,2

26 547,4

8 461,0

112 338,4

5 226,0

22 667,0

43 587,8

4 252,8

51 233,3

1 113,3

37 063,0

12 150,2

3 672,8

3 868,7

11 145,6

82 700,8

3.

Please find below the breakdown by Member State of imports for the period November 2001 to
October 2002 (i.e. imports on which duties were paid (cid:1) with a two-month delay (cid:1) in the period
January 2002 to December 2002), split in 3 categories: imports of agricultural products on which
agricultural duties were charged, imports of non-agricultural products on which customs duties were
charged and imports of goods partially or totally exempted of import duties.

Imports
of agricultural products
on which agricultural
duties were charged

Imports of
non-agricultural products
on which customs duties
were charged

Imports of goods
partially or totally
exempted of import duties

(million euros)

Total imports

10 933,8

426 028,2

479 604,2

916 566,2

479,8

94,9

1 789,9

293,9

1 171,9

731,5

102,4

1 532,8

4,7

26 547,4

8 461,0

30 768,6

6 331,5

57 795,8

14 887,3

112 338,4

102 363,2

216 491,5

5 226,0

22 667,0

43 587,8

4 252,8

51 233,3

1 113,3

9 469,8

31 475,5

54 969,1

13 992,7

49 115,5

1 811,7

14 989,8

55 314,4

99 288,4

18 347,9

101 881,7

2 929,8

EU-15

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

C 88 E/546

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Imports
of agricultural products
on which agricultural
duties were charged

Imports of
non-agricultural products
on which customs duties
were charged

Imports of goods
partially or totally
exempted of import duties

Netherlands

1 249,2

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

293,0

407,1

56,6

184,8

United Kingdom

2 541,3

37 063,0

12 150,2

3 672,8

3 868,7

11 145,6

82 700,8

67 918,4

11 714,6

5 352,9

7 912,8

11 035,3

75 372,6

Total imports

106 230,6

24 157,7

9 432,8

11 838,1

22 365,6

160 614,7

The three most important categories, by value of goods imported, partially or totally exempted of
import duties are sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

4. Agricultural duties do not include any anti-dumping duties. Anti-dumping duties are included under

customs duties.

5. The overall value of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties declared by Member States in 2002 was

EUR 114 million.

The three most important sectors (by chapter of the Combined Nomenclature) by value of imports under
anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures were the following:

(cid:1) Fish: EUR 846 million;

(cid:1) Footwear: EUR 707 million;

(cid:1) Vehicles and parts: EUR 685 million.

(2004/C 88 E/0556)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/04

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Boycott of polio vaccinations by Nigerian fundamentalists

(22 March 2004)

According to the President of Unicef, cases of polio have been recorded in as many as seven countries in
the past year through the fault of the Islamic authorities in northern Nigeria.

The Islamic authorities have suspended vaccination campaigns because they claim the preparations have
been found to contain oestrogen, a hormone that forms the basis of the contraceptive pill.

Can the Commission indicate whether, in line with the coercive measures at its disposal, it could try to
persuade the Islamic authorities in question to end their boycott, thereby ensuring that no more children
become paralysed owing to their vaccinations being deferred on the basis of unfounded rumours?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

With Nigeria continuing to have among the highest number of polio cases in the world, it is a priority
country in terms of global polio eradication. The Community contributes to the Global Polio Eradication
Initiative through various instruments as well as specifically allocating supplementary funds for polio
immunisation activities in Nigeria. The Commission is in the process of further allocating funds to fight
polio in that region.