WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2882/98 by Niels KOFOED , Jan MULDER to the Commission. Reduction of potato starch export refunds
C 297/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 15. 10. 1999 any compensatory action to be taken. Where the site concerned includes a priority natural habitat or species only human-health and public-safety aspects may be invoked, or else major benefits for the environment or, in the wake of a decision from the Commission, other pressing reasons that are greatly in the public interest. The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that Taguluche and its surrounding area have not been designated as a special bird-protection area under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). So far they have also not been officially put forward by the Spanish authorities as being a site for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (1999/C 297/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2882/98 by Niels Kofoed (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission Subject: Reduction of potato starch export refunds (28 September 1998) The Cereal Management Committee decided on 13 August to apply a lump sum reduction of the export refund for potato starch of ECU 10 (maize basis), which immediately brought this sector into a position of imbalance and ‘non-competitiveness’ with other starches. In the report from the European Parliament of 28 April 1998 on the prolongation of the potato starch quota system, the vital principle of equilibrium between the different types of starch was recognised and supported = and furthermore confirmed in Council Regulation 1284/98 (1) on 16 June 1998. In the light of this very sensible balance and the upcoming changes in the common agricultural policy (Agenda 2000) can the Commission indicate: 1. Why this principle of equilibrium, which always has been and still is a cornerstone of the EU starch policy, has been disregarded in the calculation of the export refunds for potato starch on 12 August 1998? 2. Whether it is prepared in future to follow the statements from the European Parliament as well as the Council regarding injustice through balance in the starch sector? (1) OJ L 178, 23. 6. 1998, p. 3. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1998) 1. On 13 August 1998 it was decided to apply a lump sum reduction to the export refund for potato starch of ECU 10 per tonne (maize basis) without changing the amounts for other starches, and in particular maize starch, due to the lack of transparency on the maize market during the difficult period between marketing years, and the fact that the new potato crop would become available from mid-August. From 11 September 1998, the normal situation of equivalent refunds for starch and maize starch was restored. The Commission would like to recall its report to the Council establishing a quota system in relation to 2. the production of potato starch, of 11 November 1997 (1) and in particular the following remark within the framework of Agenda 2000: Since the non-cereal starch and compensation arrangements have always been governed by the basic cereals Regulation (link to maize), the adjustment of those arrangements will follow the measures taken for maize as part of the Agenda 2000 decisions. (1) COM(97) 576 final