You are on page 1of 3

25. 2.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 60/37

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 1997)

1. The crisis in the Community's rice sector has been due, firstly, to the increase in Community production, in
particular because of Spain's re-entry into indica production after several years of drought, and, secondly, to the
rise in imports from the overseas countries and territories.

2. Prices for Italian japonica range currently between 90% and 95% of the intervention price. This is due to the
following factors:
− a structural surplus of japonica in the Community;
− production of japonica in 1996/97 was 15% higher than in 1995/96 because of good weather and the
conversion from indica to japonica in Italy;
− since the beginning of the 1996/97 marketing year, almost 15 000 tonnes of milled japonica equivalent have
been imported, in particular from the OCT.

3. Community indica production in 1996/97 is put at 632.045 tonnes of paddy rice. In Italy, 73% of the harvest
has been sold while in Spain, which represents the most important market for this type of rice, a major share
remains unsold (the Commission does not have exact figures for Spain) and is being offered into intervention.

The safeguard measures that have been taken are entirely justified because, in spite of the deficit in indica in the
Community, imports are considerably in excess of the Community's internal needs, preventing Community rice
from finding an outlet on the market. Among the imports, the impact of rice from the OCT is the most significant.

4. The Community's deficit in indica is almost 300 000 tonnes of milled rice equivalent. The main supplier
countries are the OCT, the United States and Thailand. Import prices vary considerably according to origin,
quality, type of rice and processing stage.

5. When the first activation of the safeguard clause took place in January 1996, the import price plus cost and
freight for semi-milled rice originating in the Netherlands Antilles was approximately ECU 460/tonne, compared
with a price for Spanish indica paddy rice of around ECU 324/ tonne.

6. Imports from the OCT in 1995 were close to 270 000 tonnes of husked rice equivalent; in 1996 this went up
to over 350 000 tonnes.

(98/C 60/63) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/97

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission
(20 May 1997)

Subject: Transport of live animals

In connection with EU subsidies for exports of live animals, will the Commission specify which countries live
animals are exported to?

1. How many animals are exported to each of those countries?

2. What have the trends been as regards exports of live animals from EU Member States to other countries
over the past 15 years?

3. How much subsidy per animal does the Community pay?

4. Do rules exist on the conditions in which the animals may be transported and, if so, who monitors such
transport operations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 1997)

1. With the exception of day-old chicks, the only live animals exported with the benefit of export refunds from
the Community to third countries are cattle. 497 491 animals were exported in 1996. The main countries of
C 60/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 2. 98

destination for live exports were Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey and Libya. 79% of the Community exports of live
animals went to these four countries as follows:

Lebanon 134,686
Egypt 112,339
Turkey 109,407
Libya 38,346

2. Exports of live animals during the past 6 years and the percentage of total beef exports which they
represented were:

Exports of live % of total

animals beef exports

1996 497,491 13
1995 662,089 16
1994 532,844 12
1993 482,438 12
1992 326,507 6
1991 327,218 6

For the first five months of 1997, an estimate shows that licence applications were lodged for exports of 119,145
live animals. This figure indicates a further reduction in Community exports of live animals. Furthermore, for the
second GATT year 1996/1997, licence applications for export licences have decreased for live animals to
approximately 9% of total beef exports.

3. Export refunds for beef and live animals are fixed at least every three months and published in the Official
journal. The present amounts of the export refunds were published in Commission Regulation (EC) No 982/97 of
30 May 1997 (1). Since January 1997 the refund level has been reduced by 22.5% − 32.5%.

The export refund paid on beef is differentiated. The rate of refund varies according to destination. The refund
paid for live animals other than pure bred to the destinations with the highest refunds are 57.50 ECU/100 kg live
weight for male cattle and 38.50 ECU/100 kg live weight for female cattle, while for fresh meat of male adult
bovine animals the refund rate is 122.50 ECU/100 kg carcase weight.

The table below shows the relation between the refund for live bovine animals (other than pure bred animals) and
fresh carcases, for exports to destinations with the highest refunds:
(ECU/100 kg)

Relation Relation
live Carcase Live Carcase
Live/Carcase Live/Carcase

01.08.90 101,50 171,50 0,59 85,50 126,50 0,67

05.02.93 111,50 171,50 0,65 85,50 126,50 0,67
01.05.93 101,50 171,50 0,59 85,50 126,50 0,68
26.11.94 78,50 140,00 0,56 57,50 103,00 0,56
17.2.95 (2) 90,00 169,00 0,53 66,00 124,50 0,53
14.10.95 79,00 155,00 0,51 58,50 114,00 0,51
11.11.95 73,00 155,00 0,47 54,00 114,00 0,47
26.3.97 60,50 129,00 0,47 45,50 95,00 0,48
18.4.97 57,50 122,50 0,47 38,50 81,00 0,48

4. Directive 91/628/EEC, as amended by Directive 95/29/EC (3) concerning the protection of animals during
transport, contains provisions designed to ensure the respect by transport operators, transporting animals from
Community territory to third countries, of adequate welfare conditions for the animals. In particular, the
authorities of the exporting Member State must ensure that no animal is transported unless suitable provisions
have been made for its care during the journey. The transport of animals should be carried out in lorries and
vessels which are adequate for the purpose. Under rules introduced by Directive 95/29/EC, a route plan must be
prepared in advance and transmitted to the authority. The staff in charge of the transport must have the route plan
certified at the point where the animals leave the Community, after the animals have been checked and judged by
an official to be fit to continue their journey.
25. 2. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 60/39

On a proposal from the Commission, discussions have started with the Member States about the withdrawal of
the export refund from exporters who have not fully respected the rules on the welfare of animals during
transport. A new legal basis has been proposed (to the basic regulation for beef, Council Regulation (EEC)
No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal), stipulating that in the case of exports of
live animals, the payment of the export refund shall be subject to the respect of the animal welfare standards, as
set out in Community legislation.

(1) From 1995 due to the enlargement of the European Union Austria, Sweden and Finland are included in the statistics.
(2) New green ECU from 1.2.1995: old amount x 1,207509.
(3) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(98/C 60/64) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1728/97

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(23 May 1997)

Subject: Asymmetrical impact on the Nordic welfare model of EMU criteria uniformly applicable to Member

The Member States of the Union are not homogeneous: their economic and social structures differ significantly
from one another. Under the Nordic welfare model, social security is guaranteed to all on an individual basis. As
a result, women have been freed from the obligatory caring role and dependence on men as breadwinners which
prevail in societies where women’s place is deemed to be in the home.

Public services provide jobs for women and enable them to find employment. Because of women’s dependence
on the State, cuts in public expenditure have a direct impact on women’s opportunities to make a living. Thus the
EMU criteria, and particularly the constraints on public budgets, affect men and women differently in different
countries depending on how social security is organized there. In view of the above, I would ask:

What will the Commission do to overcome the problem that the EMU criteria applicable to all affect men and
women differently in different countries?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 1997)

Cuts in public expenditure are not an objective of the economic and monetary union (EMU) criteria. If the EC
Treaty insists on limits to public deficits and debt − among other conditions of equal importance − it is to ensure
a policy-mix favourable to growth and employment. Long-run sustainability in public finances is a necessary
condition for financial market stability, low interest rates and private sector confidence, which themselves are
essential prerequisites for investment, growth and job creation.

The EMU criteria are the same for all Member States. They constitute no infringement on the Nordic welfare
model, nor on any other social arrangement remaining under national responsibility. The financial viability of
any social policy programme depends crucially on the underlying strength and income-generating capacity of the

The EMU criteria do not have an impact on the legal equality of right of men and women. They do not affect the
equal treatment of men and women on the labour market granted by national law.