WRITTEN QUESTION P-1872/99 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission. Baden-Württemberg origin and quality mark.
C 203 E/76 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 (2000/C 203 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1867/99 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission (14 October 1999) Subject: Norwegian tariffs on processed reindeer meat Traditionally, reindeer meat has been exported from Finnish Lapland to Norway. From the point of view of the development of the industry, it would be desirable for some of the meat to be exported in processed form and not simply as meat. Norway protects its meat-processing industry by means of high customs and import duties. Those on unprocessed meat are temporarily reduced when the Norwegian meat-processing industry requires raw materials. As a result, processing of reindeer meat is not viable in Finland. What will the Commission do to prevent such selective imposition of duties being used to distort competition within the EEA? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1999) Trade in agriculture and fisheries products (defined as products falling outside chapters 25 to 97 of the Harmonised commodity description and coding system) is excluded from the scope of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement by its Article 8. The EEA is not a customs union, so there are no common rules on the alignment or harmonisation of customs duties or practices. There is therefore no legal basis under which the Commission can take measures to persuade Norway to alter its tariff structure. There is a possibility within the EEA Agreement (Article 19) for the negotiation of supplementary bilateral liberalisation in agricultural trade. However, a request for reform of the Norwegian tariff structure would undoubtedly result in a reciprocal demand from Norway for a reduction in the Community tariff. The Commission therefore does not consider that this course would be wise at present. (2000/C 203 E/094) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1872/99 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission (12 October 1999) Subject: Baden-Württemberg origin and quality mark Are press reports suggesting that the Commission intends to abolish government funding for Baden- Württemberg food product marks correct? What measures are proposed, and on what grounds and on what legal basis? Which products and which types of mark are affected? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1999) The Commission is currently reviewing the Community framework for state aid for the promotion and advertising of agricultural products (Commission communication concerning state involvement in the promotion of agricultural and fisheries products (1) and the framework for national aids for the advertising of agricultural products and certain products not listed in Annex I to the EEC Treaty, excluding fishery products) (2). This review is meant to clarify the existing rules and to update them in the light of developments in Community legislation and the carelaw of the Court of justice. It is not, however, intended to make major changes of substance to the existing rules. 18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/77 In 1989 the Commission approved an aid scheme for quality promotion in Baden-Württemberg. This approval was expressly subject to the condition that all promotional activities would comply with the above mentioned framework. (1) OJ C 272, 28. 10. 1986. (2) OJ C 302, 12. 11. 1987. (2000/C 203 E/095) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/99 by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission (29 October 1999) Subject: Designation as a conservation area pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC (Fauna and Flora Habitat Directive) What legal and technical stage has been reached in the efforts to have the Schmücke region in Thuringia (Germany) designated as a special area of conservation within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC (1)? What steps has the Commission taken in this respect, or what steps is it planning to take in the future, to help bring this matter to an early conclusion? The answer to this question should pay particular attention to the possibility of conflict arising from the potential mining of limestone at Gorsleben and the plans for the B 71 motorway route with respect, inter alia, to the importance of the area within the Wippertal-Wipperdurchbruch-Hainleite-Schmücke-Finne biotope system. How does the Commission think the efficiency of the internal decision-making processes might be improved? (1) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1999) Germany has not yet proposed the area Schmücke in Thuringia to the Commission as a site of Community importance according to Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. However, the Commission has been informed of probable very high European interest due to the presence of different Annex I natural habitat types of Community interest and Annex II animal and plant species of Community interest including different priority habitat types. This high value was confirmed by the regional authorities of Thuringia, who are responsible for this and have already covered two parts of the Schmücke area by including them in a 1994/1995 scientific list for sites meriting a Natura 2000 proposal. However, no coherent list for this part of Germany has yet reached the Commission. The Commission, on the basis of information put forward by third persons, is therefore in contact with the German government. The Commission invited the German authorities to take a position with regard to the site concerned as well as a view to two envisaged projects which might have a significant effect on the site, a limestone quarry and the construction of the motorway BAB 71. However, there is no reply yet. The objective of the Commissionís intervention is to ensure that the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC are fully respected. The efficiency of the internal decision making process of Member States falls under the auspices of the administration concerned. The task of the Commission in this respect is limited, according to the EC Treaty, to ensuring that Community legislation is respected