WRITTEN QUESTION E-0853/04 by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission. New Regulation on sugar export and dispatch from outermost regions.
Date: 2004-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, Madeira, export policy, peripheral region, shareholding, sugar industry

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.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/715

We can inform the Honourable Member that:

1. The rules that we set have to be limited in their scope to implementation of the relevant Treaty and

Council Regulation provisions.

In response to the claim of discrimination in favour of Madeira against the Azores, we wish to make it
clear that:

(a) on several occasions, the first at the beginning of 2002, we asked the Permanent Representatives
of the Member States concerned (France and Portugal) what goods they envisaged exporting in
the regional trade context and to what countries. The product lists in Annexes II and III to
Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 take over their wishes unmodified;

(b)

the Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 amendments in no way prohibit exportation to the
United States and Canada of goods using locally obtained sugar, milk products and other
agricultural products. Exportation of such goods to any destination has always been and continues
to be totally free.

2. We do not know the identity of the enterprises that supply the outermost regions under the specific
supply arrangements. The data the Member States send us for monitoring purposes consists of
aggregated figures and enterprise names are not given.

3. We do not follow the progress of any negotiations on transfer of holdings in agri-food companies in
the outermost regions that may occur. Tracking such negotiations is not a responsibility assigned to us
under the Treaty or the secondary legislation.

(1) OJ L 79, 17.3.2004.

(2004/C 88 E/0735)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0877/04

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Conflict resolution in Sudan

The war in Sudan has cost millions of lives and displaced millions of people. There is now hope for an end
to the conflict. The existence of an ‘honest broker’ at the peace talks would greatly contribute to their
success. A peaceful settlement to the conflict in Sudan must engage all the peoples of Sudan, particularly
those tribes that are remote from decision-making and the centres of power.

Would the Commission consider acting as an ‘honest broker’ at the peace talks? Would it agree to commit
resources so as to achieve a successful and sustainable peace in the region?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

Peace talks between the Government of the Sudan and the SPLM/A (1) have been conducted intermittently
under the auspices of the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) since 1993. Initially,
observation was limited to representation from the Members of this regional organisation of the Horn of
Africa, but since mid-2002, the group of observers was extended to the ‘Sudan Troika’ (Norway, United
Kingdom, United States) and subsequently to the ‘extended Troika’, composed of Italy, Norway, United
Kingdom, United States, the United Nations and the African Union. It is only under this format, which
combines the immediate neighbours of the Sudan with some of the most important international players,
that substantial progress has been made: During the last two years, a series of documents have been
negotiated and they can be considered as ‘building blocks’ for a comprehensive agreement, notably the
Machakos Protocol (20 July 2002), an agreement on security arrangements (25 September 2003), and an
agreement on wealth sharing (7 January 2004). A Memorandum of Understanding on cessation of
hostilities was signed on 18 November 2002, and since then, fighting has ended in Southern Sudan, with
the exception of occasional skirmishes, mainly between pro-Government militia (SSDF) and the SPLM/A.