WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/04 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. School milk in Portugal.
Date: 2004-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, Spain, dairy production, national production, protectionism

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/553

The Commission’s dialogue with the Ethiopian Government, the Member States and other Donors has
been under way since 1996 but has moved up a gear in the last couple of years. This dialogue has
highlighted the need to address chronic food insecurity through different means, and to develop a long
term Food Security strategy. The Commission has been financially supporting these efforts since 1998 with
three programmes for a total of EUR 46 million.

Over the past year, the Government’s strategic work has led to ‘The new Coalition for Food Security in
Ethiopia’
initiative. A cornerstone of this new programme is creating safety nets for the structurally
vulnerable/chronically food insecure share of the population, with the aim of progressively replacing
emergency systems. It is relevant to point out in this regard that this strategy will require convincing all
donors, including the United States and some non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to amend their
food aid programme in favour of a more structural approach to food security.

The Commission has agreed to allocate EUR 120 million in support of a multi-annual Food Security
strategy, in particular in support of safety nets EUR 60 million from the European Development Fund/
National Indicative Programme (EDF/NIP) funds of the 9th EDF and EUR 60 million from the Food Security
Budget Line). These funds are expected to be allocated during 2004 through a budget support programme.

Finally, with regards to the Humanitarian Aid Office’s (ECHO) aid, EUR 4 million was allocated during
2003 in response to the drought crisis to complement the food aid response. This was largely for livestock
support to pastoralists to maintain their staple diet of milk from their animals. In addition, therapeutic
feeding was provided for the severely malnourished. In November 2003, EUR 2 million was allocated to
the International Committee of the Red Cross to provide health and Geneva Convention protection
assistance for one year to victims of
In March 2004 a further
EUR 1 million was allocated to victims of drought in Ethiopia. ECHO continues to closely monitor the
humanitarian situation, always ready to respond to non-food emergency needs.

inter-ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia.

(1) Swedish International Development Authority/World Food Programme/European Commission.

(2004/C 88 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: School milk in Portugal

I have learned that in Portugal, a significant number of Portuguese schools are being supplied with milk
provided by Spanish companies, although Portuguese production is adequate to the task and Portugal is in
economic recession.

In view of the difficulties of Portuguese milk producers in selling their product, is it not possible for the
‘milk for schools’ programme to make preferential use of nationally produced milk, and thus participate in
protecting small milk producers and family farms, since there is no question of the specific nature of
Portuguese agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission, while emphasising the value of
the scheme for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds, considers that the actual operation of the EU School Milk Scheme should be consistent
with horizontal internal market policies, notably competition policy.

C 88 E/554

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Therefore, it is excluded to discriminate the suppliers of school milk on the basis of their nationality.

(2004/C 88 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0955/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Statements by Commissioner Verheugen concerning Turkey’s possible accession to the Union

According to the 24 February 2004 edition of the German newspaper ‘Die Welt’ Commissioner Günter
Verheugen informed the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, two weeks before that date that in the
autumn the Commission will formally recommend to the Council that accession negotiations be opened
with Turkey.

Is this information correct?

If so, has the Commission made sufficient progress with its report on the issue of accession negotiations
with Turkey to be able to draw conclusions of this kind?

If not, has the Commission, or the Commissioner, formally denied the report in ‘Die Welt’? Why not (if
applicable)?

Does the Commission regard it as desirable that its Members or government leaders from the current
Member States should make public statements concerning the conclusions of a significant report which has
not yet been drawn up, let alone published?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

There is frequent speculation in the press as to whether the Commission will recommend the opening of
accession negotiations with Turkey later in 2004. The information mentioned in the article which the
Honourable Member refers to is inaccurate.

The task of the Commission, as set by the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002, is very clear
and has been stated on many occasions.
it will prepare a Regular Report and a
In autumn 2004,
recommendation as to whether Turkey meets the Copenhagen political criteria. This report will be based
on a fair and objective analysis.

(2004/C 88 E/0566)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject: Blood diamonds

Does the DG Competition have access to the data held by the DG External Relations concerning the
Kimberley Agreement on tracing the sources and stocks of diamonds (in order to avoid ‘blood diamonds’
coming on to the market)?

Does the Commission consider that the data held for this purpose might also shed light on the trading
practices of companies in the diamond sector? Will it evaluate such data in the context of its consideration
of the De Beers ‘Supplier of Choice’ restrictive practices?