WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2975/97 by Joaquín SISÓ CRUELLAS to the Commission. COM in sugar
16. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 117/119 As with Directive 79/409/EEC, it is the responsability of Member States to implement measures and action agreed in the framework of such a management plan. With regard to the Atlantic subspecies phalacrocorax carbo carbo in the United Kingdom the Commission would therefore recommend the Honourable Member to make contact with the national conservation authorities responsible for this matter. The Commission is not currently considering proposing the inclusion of the great cormorant phalacrocorax carbo in Annex II of the Birds Directive. Such a proposal was not requested by the Member States during the discussions leading to the recent amendment of the Directive to remove phalacrocorax carbo sinensis from Annex I. The Commission continues to recommend to the Member States the appropriate and full use of derogations provided for under Article 9 of the Birds Directive. (1) As amended, most recently by Directive 97/49/EC of 29. 7. 1997, OJ L 223, 13. 8. 1997. (98/C 117/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2975/97 by Joaqu ·n Siso· Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission (17 September 1997) Subject: COM in sugar The Union of EC Soft Drinks Associations (Unesda) regrets the fact that the sugar sector has been largely ignored in considerations regarding the forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy. In view of the fact that the common organization of the market in sugar has not changed since 1967, Unesda believes that it needs to be reformed in such a way as to bring it gradually into line with the market and to ensure that it provides income support for sugar beet producers. It also maintains that the production surpluses forecast by Commission specialists could be partly absorbed by the soft drinks industry if sugar prices were stabilized at a reasonable level. Could the Commission say what it thinks of Unesdaís views? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997) The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the production and guaranteed price arrangements in the sugar sector apply by a decision of the Council of 24 April 1995, following consultation of Parliament, until the end of the 2000/01 marketing year (1). This is why the sector is not covered by the Agenda 2000 document (2) presented by the Commission, which sees no need for discussion of the sector at the present time given the deadline for settling its future of 1 January 2001. Despite any claims to the contrary by Unesda, the market organisation has undergone several substantial adjustments since 1967. These have been essentially concerned with financing the disposal of exportable Community production through production levies paid by producers (i. e. growers and beet sugar refiners). This self-financing, which originally affected only B quota production over the quota application period, was extended to A quota production and then became a full self-financing requirement for each marketing year. This means that the Community’s annual budget meets none of the costs of disposing of Community production in this sector, which would not be the case if aid for beet production was granted as envisaged by UNESDA. In the Commission’s opinion such an approach would not at the moment be suitable for the sector. (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry: OJ L 110, 17. 5. 1995. (2) COM(97) 2000