WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/99 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission. COM in bananas.
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. C 330 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 No change is proposed to the provisions on Community production. Growers will still be able to benefit fully from the compensatory aid scheme. The proposal will be thoroughly discussed in the Council and Parliament. (1) OJ L 47, 25. 2. 1993. (2) COM(1999) 582 final. (2000/C 330 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Administration of calls for tenders in connection with common agricultural policy funding In order to allocate funding in the context of the common agricultural policy, in particular under budget heading B2-5122, the Commission issued a call for tenders for the financing of projects submitted by operators in the sector. The deadline for submitting projects was 15 November 1999. Among the entities taking part in the procedure was the forestry consortium Terra dei Santi e Colline del Poí, which requested a subsidy for the creation of a centre for agriculture and the sustainable development of the hill area concerned. All the documentation regarding the project was submitted on 13 November 1999 to Unit VI. AII. 1 of the Commissionís Directorate-General for Agriculture, at 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels. However, the Commission rejected the project, explaining that the final deadline had been brought forward from 15 November to 31 October 1999, and that the project had therefore been submitted after expiry of the deadline. Can the Commission say whether it considers it right to decide to bring forward an established deadline to the detriment of participants, making it impossible for them to have access to funding? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 February 2000) The intention behind budget heading B2-5122 was to enhance public awareness of the common agricultural policy. No call for tenders or proposals was made but a guide for potential applicants was published on the Directorate-General for Agricultureís internet site. The guide initially stated that applications could be sent to the Commission up to 15 November 1999. That date was changed to 31 October 1999 to give the Commission more time to process applications before closure of the budgetary procedures in 1999. The change was notified using the same information medium as the guide, i. e. the internet. The application by the Consorzio Forestale Terra dei Santi e Colline del Po arrived on 13 November but was in fact carefully examined and found to be ineligible under heading B2-5122