WRITTEN QUESTION P-0989/00 by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Commission. Community preference for nuts, chestnuts and carob beans.
C 53 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 The complexity of nuclear installations and the civil nuclear material quantities handled in the 2. Community have increased by a factor of more than two (240 %) since the resolution of the Parliament mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission informed the Council already in 1989 that significant additional inspection resources would be needed. The staff was augmented from 234 to 274 posts (May 2000). The Commission also performed strict rationalisation including the use of automated safeguards systems. 3. The Commission has acted on the majority of the issues addressed in Article 7 of the resolution. Unannounced inspections were carried out wherever feasible and economical, the protection of data is secured by the physical separation of the Euratom databases from the network of the Commission, and a policy has been developed and implemented for the safeguarding of nuclear waste material. 4. The Commission is in the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of all the activities of its services pursuant to the Euratom Treaty. The placement of the Euratom Safeguards Office, the way it conducts its activities and the priorities assigned to it are an integral part of the review. After its completion the Commission will draw the necessary conclusions. (2001/C 53 E/057) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0989/00 by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: Community preference for nuts, chestnuts and carob beans Throughout Europe approximately 300 000 families are involved in the production of almonds, hazelnuts, chestnuts and carob beans. However, since its needs far outstrip production, the European Union leads the world in imports of almonds, (74 % of which are supplied by the United States), hazelnuts (75 % produced by Turkey) and walnuts from California and China. The lowering of customs duties to 2 % in accordance with the Marrakesh Agreements threatens to wipe out nut production in Europe, which cannot reduce its production costs to the social and environmental dumping levels in Turkey, China and the United States. Almond, chestnut and walnut plantations protect the soil and the environment and are a source of employment and balance in the countryside. Although in ten years the European Union has invested € 725 million in the sector, today there is no one specific aid instrument dedicated to it. Does the Commission intend to set aside funding, even if only as part of environmental and rural policy, to provide adequate financing for this sector, the disappearance of which would prove a great deal more costly than ensuring its survival? What practical, specific and workable measures does the Commission intend to adopt? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 May 2000) Specific aid has been granted to the nut sector for 10 years under the provisions of Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1) in order to improve productivity and competitiveness. Community expenditure from 1990 to 1999 was € 725 million. A further expenditure of over € 250 million for improvement plans still in operation is foreseen until 2006. An additional specific flat-rate aid for hazelnuts has been granted since 1997 and up to the year 2000. Such specific aid was always intended to be temporary and degressive, in order to allow a shift of financial responsibility on to the growers. 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/51 As for all other products in the fruit and vegetable sector, aid is available for nuts through the operational fund scheme of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (2), which provides financial support for all fruit and vegetables marketed through producer organisations. Finally, taking into account environmental and social aspects of nut production, Member States can of course include nuts in their rural development plans under conditions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (3). (1) OJ L 118, 20. 5. 1972. (2) OJ L 297, 21. 11. 1996. (3) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (2001/C 53 E/058) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (31 March 2000) Subject: Compensation for companies hit by the EU and US banana dispute Will the Commission be paying compensation to those companies within the EU who have been affected by the US tariffs imposed as a direct consequence of the EU and US banana dispute, and if so at what level? (2001/C 53 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1002/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (31 March 2000) Subject: Implications of the EU and US banana dispute Is the Commission aware of the damaging effects on a number of companies within the EU resulting from the EU and US banana dispute? Will the Commission be acting speedily to bring to an end the dispute to ensure that jobs throughout the EU are safeguarded? (2001/C 53 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1003/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (31 March 2000) Subject: Ramifications for companies of the EU and US banana dispute When will the Commission be meeting US counterparts to finally solve the ongoing and harmful banana dispute between the EU and US, and when does it expect that this will be concluded to the satisfaction of all parties?