WRITTEN QUESTION No. 143/99 by Brigitte LANGENHAGEN EU aid to Osterholz-Scharmbeck
C 370/20 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 12. 1999 of destination indicated once the cereals have been transferred from intervention stores are Muuga in Estonia and Klaipeda in Lithuania, from where the cereals are to be transported to various destinations in Russia. As the Commission’s powers of supervision extend only to EU territory, it seems poor planning for the Commission not to have chosen as the port of unloading Kotka or Lovisa, both of which are in the Gulf of Finland, within EU territory, and located at much the same distance from the ultimate places of processing. Goods have been carried to Russia from these ports both by sea and by rail. This would have enabled monitoring and inspection of the transport of food aid to Russia to extend considerably further than will be the case if the port of Muuga or Klaipeda is used. How will the Commission ensure that food aid to Russia does not distort normal trade in food, and how will the Commission monitor the correct delivery of food aid as far as possible along the route? (1) OJ L 349, 24. 12. 1998, p. 12. Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (27 April 1999) The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the reply given to Written Question E-3957/98 by Mrs Matikainen-Kallström (1) on the safe delivery of food aid to Russia. If, at any stage, the Commission is not satisfied that the terms of Council Regulation (EC) 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (2) or of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) of 20 January 1999 with the government of the Russian Federation are being respected, the food supply programme will be suspended. In fact in accordance with paragraph 3. 12, the MoU has been clarified as regards its operational aspects and a Community-Russian working group has been set up to discuss weekly the progress of the programme and any problems. In order to ensure that the Community food aid does not distort normal trade in food, the MoU provides that the products will be sold at local market prices apart from exceptional cases where some food may be given free of charge to the most vulnerable groups in eligible regions. In addition, the government of the Russian Federation has undertaken to prevent the re-export of any of the commodities received and is also suspending its own exports of meat and grain. The Commission has selected specialised firms to monitor the shipments from their collection from the intervention stores in the Community until they reach the local markets in the eligible regions in Russia. The memorandum of understanding spells out the exact quantities of each product to be delivered to the eligible regions. The regions of Moscow and St Petersbourg are not eligible. The Honourable Member is also referred to the Commission’s replies to Written Question P-269/99 by Mr Hager (3) and to Oral Question H-130/99 by Mr Giansily during question time at Parliament’s March 1999 part-session (4). (1) OJ C 207, 21. 7. 1999, p. 150. (2) OJ L 349, 24. 12. 1998. (3) (4) Debates of the Parliament (March 1999). See page 28. (1999/C 370/025) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0143/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission (11 February 1999) Subject: EU aid to Osterholz-Scharmbeck During the 1994-1999 parliamentary term, what European Union grants, broken down by aid area, and for what amounts, were made to Osterholz-Scharmbeck?