WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Customs stamps in non-Community countries.
C 53 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (29 May 2000) Following the finding of World Trade Organisation (WTO) incompatibility of various aspects of the current Community banana regime (a regime which had already been revised after the WTO ruling on the previous regime), the Commission proposed in November 1999 a two step approach to modify the import rules for bananas: a tariff rate quota (TRQ) system should be established on a temporary basis and should be replaced by a flat tariff on January 2006. The management of the TRQ system in particular as regards the licence allocation, is at present the subject of extensive discussion with all concerned. In the absence of agreement on licence allocation of all concerned, the Commission proposal foresees the possibility of establishing a flat tariff system immediately. In parallel with consultations with all countries exporting bananas to the Community, including the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries as well as with the commercial operators and the Community producers, the Commission is also pursuing bilateral discussions with the United States (US). The latest meeting was held in Washington on 30 March 2000. So far, however, it has not been possible to agree on a mutually acceptable solution to the banana dispute. The main problem in drafting a Commission proposal to establish a TRQ system remains the question of how import licences should be attributed to operators. Most operators appear to be in favour of a licence distribution based on historic performance during a representative period. The difficulty is that they cannot agree on a single period acceptable to all. The US insists on a reference period pre-1993, i. e. a period that predates the establishment of the internal market for bananas. This position is reflected in the so-called Caribbean proposal. However, Ecuador favours a very recent period, but in any case post-1993, whereas the ACP countries advocate a long period covering both pre- and post 1993. Regarding áan automatic switchí to a tariff only system, this is already foreseen in the Commission proposal and as such this is not a part of the discussion with the US. Concerning Community production, it is important to note that the WTO panel has never put in question the deficiency payment system in the Community banana sector. The Commission is of the opinion that the farm income of the European banana producer can be guaranteed by this current aid system, which therefore ensures the continuation of Community banana production. (2001/C 53 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Customs stamps in non-Community countries Further to my question No E-0203/00 (1), will the Commission say whether it intends to take steps to encourage the World Customs Organisation to keep continuously updated records of current customs stamps worldwide? Does the Commission believe that the actual usefulness of customs stamps ü which can be stolen, copied or illicitly used in other ways ü as a means of verification, is in reasonable proportion to their economic importance? (1) OJ C 26 E, 26. 1. 2001, p. 18. 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/61 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 May 2000) the As regards the actual usefulness of customs stamps to which the Honourable Member refers, Commission considers that the customs authorities of the third countries are the party best placed to certify the completion of the customs import formalities into that country, to which, in the case of differentiation of the rate of the refund by destination, the payment of the refund is subject. The Commission plans to raise the question of drawing up a world-wide catalogue of current customs stamps at a forthcoming meeting of the World Customs Organisation. (2001/C 53 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1043/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Infringements in connection with Project 97/11/561/047 (Sogama project) financed under the Cohesion Fund In his answer on behalf of the Commission to my Written Question E-1737/99 (1) on the solid waste management project in Galicia (Sogama), Mr Barnier did not reply to the specific points made in my question in relation to the projectís design, which criticised the fact that the project was basically geared to incineration with energy recovery, to which most of the investment had been allocated, rather than to minimising, re-using and recycling waste. Consequently, attention still needs to be drawn to a number of aspects in addition to demanding that the conditions laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (2) establishing a Cohesion Fund are met and hoping that the condition mentioned by Mr Barnier in his answer, i. e. that payments will be made subject to the presentation by those responsible for the project of periodical reports on overall progress, will indeed be put into practice. The following should be taken into consideration: ü the Sogama project clearly fails to comply with Community legislation, in particular Council Directive 75/442/EEC (3) of 15 July 1975 on waste, Article 3(1) of which commits the Member States to encouraging the prevention, recycling and processing of waste and mentions the production of energy, which is nevertheless at the centre of the Sogama project, only in second place and as a possibility. Indeed, that project (Project 97/11/561/047) does not comply with its own description as contained in the decision granting financial support under the Cohesion Fund. ü finally, the project runs counter to the new Spanish legislation and specifically the National Plan on Solid Urban Waste, which accepts the objectives of the above Council Directive and places the emphasis on the principles of recovering, reducing and recycling organic waste by means of processing. The Galician regional government is manifestly failing to meet those objectives, given that the Sogama project is chiefly geared to incineration and the volume of waste incinerated in Galicia is set to reach 300 000 tonnes in 2001 and 500 000 in 2005. Is the Commission aware that the Sogama project involves the incineration rather than the recycling of organic waste? Can it confirm the projectís evident failure to comply with basic Community legislation on environmental protection in connection with waste? What are the Commissionís plans as regards the requirement that periodical progress reports be submitted as announced in the Commissionerís reply? (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000, p. 86. (2) OJ L 130, 25. 4. 1994, p. 1. (3) OJ L 194, 25. 7. 1975, p. 39