WRITTEN QUESTION E-0848/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Council. Action of the European Union against landmines.
C 46 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 With a view to safeguarding the cultural and economic wealth of the countryside and the production of natural spirit in the Community, which makes up only 0,1 % of the alcohol consumed, and to avoid any discrimination between producers and any distortion of competition in the single market, does the Commission not think that there are grounds for promoting a certain harmonisation of legislation concerning producers? What are the options that the Commission can envisage under the rural development policy to support actions to conserve orchard and old fruit varieties harvested to produce fruit juice and jam and to distil fruit fermented in the cask? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 April 2000) The Commission is aware that there are no common rules governing the production of alcohol, including the production of spirits by small producers. Over the past thirty years the Commission has put forward a number of proposals for the common organisation of the market in alcohol of agricultural origin. The Council, however, has failed to reach agreement because the Member States wanted to retain their own arrangements. As these arrangements now no longer apply or are under serious review, the sector itself and several Member States have expressed an interest in establishing a framework of common rules covering alcohol. The Commission is at present discussing with national experts the need for such a framework within which competition aspects could be addressed. On the question of tax, Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1) harmonises the rules on excise duties and provides in Article 22 that Member States may apply reduced rates of excise duty to ethyl alcohol produced by small distilleries. The practical arrangements for applying this measure are the responsibility of the Member States. Under the rural development policy, whose legal basis is 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 (2), Member States may put forward programmes granting support for a number of agricultural activities and their redevelopment. Among the various measures that can be used to conserve the types of farming and production referred to by the Honourable Member, a special role could be played by the agro-environmental measures. These provide support for agricultural production methods aimed at protecting the environment and safeguarding the countryside. As stated in Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of the above Council Regulation (3), support may include commitments for preserving plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion. These could include in particular measures to conserve old fruit-bearing tree and plant varieties and long-established orchards. (1) OJ L 316, 31. 10. 1992. (2) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999. (3) OJ L 214, 13. 8. 1999. (2001/C 46 E/066) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0848/00 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Council (20 March 2000) Subject: Action of the European Union against landmines The European Union has spearheaded the campaign against anti-personnel landmines by adopting two joint actions (1995 and 1997). Parliament, too, has resolutely taken up this fight by devoting thereto several resolutions and a public hearing back in 1995. 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/61 Now that all of the Member States (excepting Finland) have signed the Ottawa Convention, and that Council and Parliament are due to take a position on the proposed regulation adopted by the Commission, the European Union must reaffirm its commitment to an actual implementation of this Convention and its universalisation. How might the 1997 joint action be assessed? What is the Councilís position as to this joint action 1. being reappraised as a political signal of the Unionís commitment? Regarding the adaptation of national legislation, what is the state of play on the actual implementa- 2. tion of the Conventionís provisions in the Member States? Have the reports required of the Member States been drawn up? Have they been made public? How large has been the place given to anti-personnel mines in the political dialogue with the Unionís 3. partners and in particular with the countries applying for accession (of which five are not signatories to the Convention? Reply (10 July 2000) On the eve of the Ottawa Conference in 1997, the European Union adopted a new Joint Action on 1. Anti-Personnel Landmines (APLs), in which the Union reiterated its commitment to the goal of total elimination of APLs world-wide. The Union therefore welcomed the opening for signature in Ottawa of the Convention and the efforts made by its signatories to promote universal accession to the Convention. On the occasion of the First Conference of the States Parties to the Ottawa Conference (3-7 May 1999), the Union called upon all States to work together to achieve the total elimination of APLs world-wide. The Associated Countries, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Cyprus (not Poland) concurred with this statement. In order to encourage full and speedy implementation of the Convention, the Union made a number of dØmarches that demonstrated its wide support for the aims of the Convention. In that spirit the EU Member States also undertook in the Joint Action to participate actively in any conferences organised after the signature of the Convention and to seek to encourage, in all appropriate fora, any efforts likely to help to achieve the objectives of the Joint Action. The Joint Action sets out the framework for specific action by the EU and its financial contribution 2. to demining activities. In 1993-1997, the Union contributed USD 140 million to demining activities and assistance to victims. That amount does not include individual contributions by the EU Member States. In 1998, total funding by the European Community and Member States amounted to approximately USD 95 million. This makes the EU the worldís premier donor in the field. On 28 November 1997 the Council of the European Union adopted a Decision on the implementation of Joint Action 96/588/CFSP of 1 October 1996 on APL with a view to contributing to the funding of certain programmes of the SADC (ECU 2,07 million), the ICRC Mine Awareness Programme in the former Yugoslavia and the programme for the rehabilitation of victims disabled by mines in Iraq (ECU 1,43 million). On the same day the Council adopted a decision on the implementation of Joint Action 96/588/ CFSP on APL with a view to co-financing the special appeals from the ICRC (maximum contribution of ECU 8 million). 3. In its statement to the First Conference of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, the Union noted that all States Parties have undertaken never to use APLs under any circumstances. The EU also expects all signatory States fully to abide by the objectives, aims and spirit of the Ottawa Convention. While guided first and foremost by humanitarian concerns, the EU will focus its efforts on States Parties and on signatories that fully observe in practice the principles and objectives laid down in the Convention. Recent civilian victims of mine-laying highlight the importance of abolishing this deadly weapon and the pertinence of the objectives set out in the EU Joint Action: the total elimination of APLs and assistance in solving the problems already caused by these weapons. As the objectives of the Joint Action remain valid, the Union is not considering updating it. C 46 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 At the First meeting of the Standing Committee of Experts (SCE) on the General Status and 4. Operation of the Ottawa Convention, which was held on 10 and 11 January 2000, a positive assessment was made of the growing universalisation of the Convention with 137 countries that have signed or acceded to the Convention and 90 ratifications. It was reported that 31 states had already submitted reports on their implementation of the Convention to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Article 7 of the Convention) and that 34 states were late in submitting their reports. South Africa and Canada, as co-chairs of the SCE, reported to the meeting that they had approached the States in question with a view to encouraging them to take all necessary steps to demonstrate their continued strong support for the ban on APLs. Although the Convention does not require the publication of reports, the Ottawa Convention stipulates in Article 7 that the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit all the reports received to the States Parties, who will then consider matters arising from the reports at the Meeting of the States Parties. The reports are also available on the website of the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs: http://domino. un. org/ottawa. nsf. 5. The European Union welcomes the efforts made by the signatory States to encourage universal accession to the Ottawa Convention and has raised the issue of its implementation during meetings in the context of the political dialogue on global disarmament and arms control with all the associated countries, the EFTA countries which are members of the European Economic Area, Canada and the United States, and with other countries (Australia) or regional groups (SADC). With regard to the negotiations for the accession to the European Union, the applicant countries are expected to comply fully with the acquis, including Common Positions and Joint Actions adopted in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. (2001/C 46 E/067) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (21 March 2000) Subject: Mozambique It is now many days since disaster struck Mozambique. A million people are suffering the effects of the extremely serious flooding caused by heavy rains: some have died, others are missing and damage to property is widespread. However, neither the European Union nor its Member States have taken the action which is so urgently required in order to lessen the damage caused, to care for the sick, to feed the hungry and to prevent further loss of human life. What is the reason for the EUís negligence and what action is the Commission to take in order to correct without delay the unacceptable behaviour which it has displayed in Mozambique and in other countries? Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (28 April 2000) From the very outset of the crisis in Mozambique, the Commission and Member States have given the government their support, both in cash and in kind. Each and every Member State has given generously to the government of Mozambiqueís initial appeal, providing food aid, helicopters and transport planes, personnel, medicines, drinking water, tents and blankets, as well as funding via the United Nations (UN) such as the World food programme. The donor tracking system of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) confirms that the Community has provided the lionís share of the international communityís response to the Mozambique crisis, estimated at some € 120 million in the initial rescue and relief phases alone