WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/99 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Production of counterfeit goods in CEECs.
C 280 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 (2000/C 280 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: CITES and the hawksbill sea turtle Can the Commission assure me that the EU will not be supporting the Cuban proposal for downlisting the hawksbill sea turtle from Appendix I to Appendix II at the next CITES Conference in 2000? I believe that the Cuban justifications for downlisting are based on erroneous population models and biology and, furthermore, that if the hawksbill is downlisted, it will serve to fuel the existing illegal trade in sea turtle shell. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (1 February 2000) The Community has, unfortunately, not yet been able to become a party to CITES. Those Member States that are party to this Convention will vote individually at the forthcoming 11th conference of the parties. In view of the existence of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), there is Community competence on many of the issues to be discussed at the Conference, including the two Cuban proposals concerning hawksbill sea turtles. The position of the Community and its Member States on these issues, including the way in which the Member States which are party to CITES vote, is determined by the Council on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. Experts from a number of Member States visited Cuba in September 1999 to examine the situation concerning hawksbill turtles. Trade controls appear to be good and the capture of turtles is well regulated. However, the impact of the harvest on the populations of this species is more difficult to assess because of the life history and biology of the species. The Commission will focus on this aspect when comparing these proposals with the scientific criteria established by CITES for judging such proposals. The Com- mission also wishes to take into account the CITES secretariat and expert non- governmental organizations. As a consequence, no firm conclusion has been drawn to date. the opinions of (1) OJ L 61, 3. 3. 1997. (2000/C 280 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/99 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Production of counterfeit goods in CEECs According to reports by the UN Economic Commission for Europe, Central and Eastern Europe have become a thriving market for counterfeit goods, as Asia has been for some time, and such goods are reaching the EUís internal market via those regions. Counterfeit goods production is also a major obstacle to increases in EU investment in Eastern Europe, as businesses see that they will not enjoy the requisite legal protection in the countries concerned. How will the Commission step up its efforts to combat the manufacture and distribution of counterfeit goods in Eastern Europe? What will the Commission do to improve cooperation with the authorities of Eastern European countries in this regard?Is there any way in which the Commission can include measures against counterfeit goods in the pre-accession partnership programmes? 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/55 Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (28 January 2000) The Commission refers to its reply given to the Honourable Memberís Written Question E-3958/98 (1) intellectual property the Commission is closely monitoring the evolution of which indicated that protection in Central and Eastern Europe. In this context, the Commission considers that in the large majority of the Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) substantive progress in the harmonisation of the legislation with the acquis has been achieved. However, certain shortcomings in the establishment of an adequate legal framework still exist. In addition, the administrative capacity relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights still needs significant improvement and better administrative co-operation between the authorities is also needed. Most of the CEEC countries are heading in the right direction and, on the whole, levels of piracy are decreasing, even though they remain high. Bulgaria can be mentioned as a country which has achieved significant results in the fight against piracy during 1999. The Commission will continue to give high priority to the fight against piracy in the framework of the enlargement negotiations. (1) OJ C 207, 21. 7. 1999, p. 151. (2000/C 280 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2493/99 by Dominique Souchet (UEN) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Export refunds for processed food products Export refunds are essential for ensuring that some EU food sectors are able to continue exporting European processed agricultural products on international markets. They constitute a logical and legitimate form of compensation for the difference in raw material prices in the EU compared with international prices, and are an essential component of the principle of Community preference. The Commission proposal aimed at reducing the refund budget by 4,5 % for products not included in Annex I had just been submitted at the time of the last meeting of the management committee. The proposal failed to obtain a qualified majority with 53 votes against, 28 abstentions and no votes in favour. 1. In view of this, does the Commission intend to adopt the proposal? 2. In the run-up to the WTO negotiations due to begin shortly in Seattle, does the Commission not consider that it is sending out a political signal that could undermine the maintenance of the principle of Community preference, which is a fundamental part of the CAP? Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (26 January 2000) The Honourable Member refers to the fixing of export refunds for products not covered by Annex I (ex Annex II) to the EC Treaty, which have been reduced by a flat-rate of 4,5 % as of 1 November 1999. This reduction is intended to ensure that spending on refunds for the sector not covered by Annex I remains within the appropriations set by the budgetary authority. This measure does not undermine the principle of Community preference but is simply intended to ensure that, when refund rates are fixed, both the constraints that maintain substantial differences between agricultural product prices within the Community and worldwide and the discipline imposed on the Community budget ü and, in particular, on its agricultural component ü are taken into account