WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Objective 2 in Lazio.
C 225 E/132 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 In Finland, horses are primarily competition and sports animals. Less than half of all horses are slaughtered and, of those, only a fraction are used in the foodstuffs industry. That is why it is really important for competition and sports horses to be excluded from the rules on veterinary medicine. The Commission clearly agrees with me and has made a proposal Nevertheless, there seem to be delays in dealing with it. to that effect to the Council. 1. What is the Commissionís proposed timetable for placing competition and sports horses in a different category from those horses classified as production animals? 2. If there should be further delays in dealing with the Commissionís proposals, what action can be taken now to ensure that competition and sports horses can be treated, given that no maximum residue limit (MRL) values have yet been set for the medicine required? Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (28 January 2000) Following a favourable opinion by qualified majority at the meeting of a joint zootechnical and veterinary standing committee on 8 December 1999 the Commission adopted a Decision establishing the identifica- tion document (passport) accompanying registered equidae for breeding and production (1) based on Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae (2) and Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 june 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae (2). The identification document foreseen for equidae for breeding and production uses part of the information provided in the internationally recognized passport for registered equidae, established by Decision 93/623/ EEC (3). A special section to be added to the identification document accompanying registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production provides for marking of equidae which are not intended for slaughter for human consumption and of those which are intended for slaughter under the condition that treatment with medicines containing substances not included in Annex I, II or III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (4), is recorded and a general withdrawal period of six months is observed. With effect from 1 January 2000 the administration to food-producing animals of medicinal products containing pharmacologically active substances which are not included in Annex I, II and III of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 is prohibited within the Community. Therefore, treatment of an equine animal with substances not included in these annexes can only be applied or prescribed after the vet has satisfied himself that the equine animal is properly marked in the new section of the identification document either as not intended for slaughter or as intended for slaughter under the above conditions. When equidae are transported to the slaughterhouse, the identification document must be checked by the official vet at the slaughterhouse during ante-mortem inspection to verify the identity and to check the medication record in order to ascertain the completion of the required withdrawal period. (1) (not yet published). (2) OJ L 296, 27. 10. 1990. (3) OJ L 298, 3. 12. 1993. (4) OJ L 87, 2. 4. 1992. (2000/C 225 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/99 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Objective 2 in Lazio The recent redesignation of areas eligible for Objective status and hence of the targets for European Union structural funding has triggered controversy in the region of Lazio, focused on the new award of such 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/133 status. In particular, the proposal by the Lazio regional authorities regarding Objective 2 does not appear to reflect adequately the development characteristics of the various areas concerned and therefore does not correspond to the Commissionís guidelines to the Member States in this connection. Can the Commission answer the following: 1. Has it already intervened regarding the definition of eligible areas in Lazio and if so, in what way? 2. Has it expressed itself in favour of the proposal by Lazio regarding the redefinition of Objective status, and in particular of Objective 2? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (21 January 2000) Following the Commissionís decision of 1 July 1999 setting, for each Member State, the maximum population eligible for Objective 2 assistance in 2000-2006, the national authorities were invited to send the Commission (at the latest by 31 August 1999) their proposed list of eligible areas within their territory. The Italian authorities sent their proposal on 1 October 1999. On 11 October 1999, the Italian authorities were informed that their proposal was not acceptable as it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999, which the areas that satisfy the Communityí criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance. The Commission therefore called on the Italian authorities to draw up a new proposal in compliance with the Regulation. As soon as it receives the revised Italian proposal, the Commission will evaluate the eligibility of the Italian region of Lazio for Objective 2 assistance. (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds: OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 225 E/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Reform of the banana sector with reference to the WTO panel At the Council meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 15 November the Commission put forward a proposal for an amendment to the customs arrangements relating to the banana sector. The purpose of the proposal is to put an end to import quotas and to base the arrangements solely on customs duties with effect from 1 January 2006. This is an attempt to bring the banana regime into line with the WTO rules, in response to the criticisms expressed by the USA and the multinational companies which export from the ádollar bananaí area. Has the Commission carried out any research into the impact which any change in the arrangements would have on Community producers, particularly in view of the fact that there is to be an automatic shift to a scheme based solely on customs duties (which could be reduced as a result of the WTO Millennium Round negotiations)? If such research has been carried out, what were the main findings thereof? If Community producers suffer any losses, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to compensate them and to provide support for the sector and its future? Has the Commission carried out any research into the impact which any change in the arrangements would have on ACP producers, particularly in view of the fact that there is to be an automatic shift to a scheme based solely on customs duties? What action does the Commission intend to propose in terms of cooperation policy and the Community budget in order to compensate ACP producers for their losses?