WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Export refund limits.
C 219 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 and within eight years after 16 July 2001 at the latest. In the first instance, the Spanish authorities must take the measures necessary to comply with their obligations under the Directive. (1) OJ C 27 E, 29. 1. 2000, p. 111. (2) OJ L 20, 26. 1. 1980. (2000/C 219 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1856/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 October 1999) Subject: Progress made in implementing the operational health and welfare programme under the Community support framework for Greece From the Commissionís answer to a previous question by me, it emerged that implementation of the operational programme for health and welfare under the Community support framework for Greece was encountering difficulties and that the take-up of funds earmarked for this purpose was extremely slow. Can the Commission indicate the present take-up rate of the relevant funds? Have the problems affecting implementation of the programme been overcome and, if not, what is the reason for such long delays? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1999) The take-up rate of the Health and welfareí programme under the 1994-1999 Community support framework for Greece currently amounts to 41 %. This low rate is explained by the fact that the programme started rather late. Moreover, a large part of the appropriations is intended for capital expenditure on hospitals built under the regional programmes, and so dependent on the progress made in constructing those buildings. According to the information sent to the Commission by the Greek authorities, all the contracts for projects in the programme have been or are being signed. Given the nature of these projects, namely mainly purchases of equipment and the construction of small medical facilities, it is expected that all the appropriations allocated to this programme will be used by the established deadlines. With regard to assistance for human resources, the delays recorded during the first years of implementa- tion may be put down to work on developing systems and procedures to ensure better training and introduction of the changes required to improve response to highly specialised needs in the field of health. The implementation of these measures is proceeding in satisfactory fashion and the Greek authorities expect all the appropriations to be used. (2000/C 219 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (14 October 1999) Subject: Export refund limits The current proposals to limit export refunds in each budget year will ultimately adversely affect companiesí cashflow by forcing them to buy a Refund Certificate which will ácostí 25 % of the estimated refund. Will the European Union pay exporters interest on the monies held on security? 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/35 Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1999) Refund certificatesí were introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/1999 of 23 July 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the EC Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1223/94 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of advance-fixing certificates for certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the EC Treaty (1) to ensure that the request of the Communityís international obligations under the World trade organisation (WTO) with regard to products outside Annex I (ex Annex II) EC Treaty. Among other things, this regulation stipulates that the applicant for a refund certificate must provide security to ensure that the refunds for which he has applied are equal to the amount of export refunds for which the certificate was issued, and that the exports in question were effected while the certificate was valid. Applications for certificates are therefore only valid if a security is given for an amount equivalent to 25 % of the amount written on the certificate. Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (2) states that a security can be given in the form of a cash deposit or in some other form. Article 15 stipulates that in the case of a cash deposit, no interest shall be paid. This stipulation has been in force since 1985. It should be emphasised that a cash deposit is only one of several ways in which a security can be given, and that a cash deposit is of course released as soon as the applicant can show compliance with the conditions listed in the previous paragraph. Moreover, companies with total applications for export refunds of less than € 20 000 in a given year may export goods without possession of a refund certificate, as long as the budget allowed for this facility has not been exhausted. (1) OJ L 201, 31. 7. 1999. (2) OJ L 205, 3. 8. 1985. (2000/C 219 E/043) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1860/99 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 October 1999) Subject: SMEs and environmental protection SMEs very often pursue activities which pollute the environment. Taking preventive measures to pursue for SMEs, which is those activities in an environmentally friendly manner creates a certain cost incorporated into the price of their products or services, sometimes making them less competitive. This extraneous cost then acts as a disincentive to developing the ideas and methods required for environmental management. Experience gained in implementing the EMAS Regulation (eco-management and audit scheme) shows that SMEs avoid taking part in the scheme as they fear that their operating costs and, by extension, the prices of their products or services will increase. There is, therefore, a need to find fresh incentives (financial or otherwise, particularly in the context of the 3rd CSF) and, possibly, to create a specific financial instrument ü other than the LIFE programme ü to strengthen the environmental dimension of SMEs