WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/99 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Concerns felt by the avocado sector as a result of the EU-Mexico agreement.
C 330 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 deteriorated seriously during the investigation period. Indeed, it was found that profitability, sales volume, sales prices, production, etc, during the second half of the investigation period developed so negatively that it had to be qualified as material injury. In addition, it was found that this bad situation persisted in 1999. information also provided concrete explanations as to why there has been a time-lag The additional between the surge in dumped and subsidised imports and the beginning of the deterioration of the economic situation of the Community industry during the IP. The Commission concluded that no other factors other than dumped and subsidised imports were the cause of the injury. The evaluation of all the interests involved on the Community market, the so called Community interest test, showed that no compelling reasons existed against the imposition of measures. On this basis the Commission decided to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing measures in the framework of the above proceedings (1). (1) Commission Decision No 283/2000/ECSC of 4 February 2000 (Anti-Dumping) Commission Decision No 284/ 2000/ECSC of 4 February 2000 (Anti-subsidies) (OJ L 31, 5. 2. 2000). (2000/C 330 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/99 by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Concerns felt by the avocado sector as a result of the EU-Mexico agreement Farmers in the province of Malaga (Spain), one of the main centres for avocado production in the Community, have expressed their concern at the possible consequences of the recent signing of the trade agreement between the EU and Mexico. At present the EU import duty on Mexican avocados is 4 % from January to May, 7,5 % from June to November and 5 % in December. Under the free trade agreement these duties will disappear, causing serious damage to the EU avocado sector. How will the Commission protect the interests of Spanish avocado producers in the face of Mexican imports of this product, given the serious consequences they will suffer as a result of the liberalisation brought about by the entry into force of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 2000) Under the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, avocados from that country will indeed benefit from a gradual, linear reduction in ad valorem customs duties on imports into the Community from July 2000 and from the complete abolition of such duties from 2008. This reduction will be applied to basic duties of between 2,7 % and 5,1 % (depending on the months involved). In addition, a 20 000 tonne duty-free quota will apply to Mexican imports during the period from 1 June until 30 September, which is outside the traditional Community production period (October to May). Community production will, therefore, have a substantial period of time to adapt to the dismantling of duties on Community imports of Mexican avocados. Furthermore, since the ad valorem duties currently in force are already low (between 4 % and 5,6 %, depending on the months involved), it seems unlikely that the entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico could have a detrimental effect on Community avocado production, which is characterised by a very high degree of competitiveness. 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/53 Adverse effects on Community production are all the less likely in view of the fact that, first, Mexican production is handicapped by rather irregular yields and, second, relatively high demand on the domestic market affects the price and, therefore, the competitiveness of Mexican avocados. Moreover, the progres- sive lifting, since 1997, of plant-health restrictions on imports of Mexican avocados to the United States should gradually result in Mexican avocado exports being redirected to that market. If necessary, however, the Commission may consider implementing the safeguard measures enshrined in the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 15 of the Agreement. (2000/C 330 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/99 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: COM in bananas On 10 November 1999 the Commission presented a proposal aimed at reforming the common organisa- tion of the market in bananas with a view to complying with WTO rules. The scheme envisaged is organised in two stages, with the tariff quota being retained in the first and an exclusively tariff-based system being automatically introduced as of 1 January 2006. This scheme makes unacceptable concessions to producers in the Latin American countries, while failing the interests of Community producers and undertakings made by the to take genuine account of Community vis-à-vis its African, Caribbean and Pacific partners. Furthermore, the Council appears to be very divided on the Commission proposal: France, Spain and Portugal do not regard the tariff approach as a viable basis for negotiation. Tens of thousands of jobs are threatened by it (including 30 000 in the French overseas departments and 35 000 in the Canaries!). How does the Commission intend to ensure that the interests of Community and ACP-country producers are protected? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 February 2000) The proposal for amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on common organisation of the market in bananas (1) was adopted by the Commission on 10 November 1999 (2). The reasoning behind the proposal is set out at length in the accompanying explanatory memorandum. In the Commissionís opinion it maintains a balance between the Communityís various obligations. A substantial tariff preference for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries should enable them to maintain their traditional export levels. The memorandum also states that additional measures can if necessary be envisaged for the weakest and most banana-dependent ACP countries in particular