WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Inability to provide data on tuna fillet imports.
13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/7 (2001/C 46 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (14 February 2000) Subject: Implementation of the second Community support framework The second Community support framework for Greece is already drawing to an end and during the year 2000 work will be carried out only on projects agreed up to the end of 1999. In view of this: 1. What is the take-up rate for national and regional programmes under the second Community support framework? 2. In which programmes has the take-up been slowest and what are the main reasons for the delay? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (7 April 2000) 1. On 15 January 2000, the average implementation rate (in terms of payments) of the different operational programmes under the Community support framework for Greece during the 1994-1999 programming period, taking all Structural Funds together, was 72,5 % in the case of the national OPs and 76,8 % in the case of the regional OPs. As a result of reprogramming exercises undertaken up to the end of 1999, the commitment rate for all programmes should very soon reach 100 %. On the payments side, the rules allow for an additional two- year period for implementing payments on the sums allocated to the Greek CSF. The programmes covering postal services and privately owned infrastructure in Northern Greece are 2. showing a rather low payment rate but the amounts involved are not very substantial and can thus be easily taken up in the near future. The causes of these delays are mainly to be found in the difficulties at the start-up of the postal services programme and in the late adoption in 1997 of the aid for private infrastructure in Northern Greece. (2001/C 46 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/00 by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Inability to provide data on tuna fillet imports (14 February 2000) When the Thai authorities asked the European Union to open a new quota to allow 8 000 tonnes of products to be imported under tariff heading 1604. 14. 00 (tinned tuna and tuna fillets), at a time when the Community tuna fillet market may be considered to be adequately supplied, as a study commissioned by the Commission has just shown, I asked the Commission various questions in Written Question E-2310/ 99 (1), including the amounts of tuna fillets exported by Thailand to the EU under the last two quotas opened, and the names of the Community companies which have been buying them. Astonishingly, the Commission replied that it was unable to provide the information requested, since because the trading activities of private companies were involved, the Commission had no data. C 46 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 I would therefore ask the Commission: ü how can it possibly ask the Council to open tuna fillet quotas year after year when it possesses no data whatsoever on either the quantities of this product entering the Union under the quotas in question, or the Member State companies importing it? ü what sort of checks does the Commission actually carry out on these imports, which are of direct relevance to a major Community industry in which large numbers of jobs and major investments are at stake? (1) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 95. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 March 2000) In Written Question E-2310/99 (1), the Honourable Member only requested information about private companies in Thailand (a list of Thai companies which export tuna fillets to the Community and the amounts exported by each company) and within the Community (a list of Community companies which import these products, and an indication of their location). As the Commission stated in its answer, it is unable to provide information about the trading activities of private companies since it does not possess such data. When drafting proposals for quotas for fishery products, the Commission refers in particular to global data regarding the utilisation of these quotas and to requests made by the authorities in the Member States. As regards checks on imports to which these quotas apply, the Commission and the Member States apply the provisions laid out in Articles 308a to 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establish- ing the Community Customs Code (2). (1) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 95. (2) OJ L 253, 11. 10. 1993. (2001/C 46 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0408/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (15 February 2000) Subject: Different rates of import duty for Alaska pollack and hoki (longtail hake) (7,5 %) For the period January ü March 2000 different customs duties are to be applied on items previously subject to the same rate of duty. Since the beginning of the year Alaska pollack has accordingly been subject to a duty of 3,5 %, while hoki (longtail hake) has been subject to a duty of 7,5 %. This cannot be justified by efforts to husband resources since Alaska pollack is being endangered by overfishing while stocks of hoki are still plentiful. In view of this: 1. what were the reasons for this one-sided increase in duties in hoki? 2. what are the general objectives behind these customs duties? 3. Can the Commission give information regarding stocks of the above fish species and any corrective measures envisaged?