You are on page 1of 2

C 46 E/22 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13.2.

2001

breeders)? What will be the implications for some sectors of agriculture whose principal customers are in
the export and processing sector, in view of the problem of continuity which may arise, particularly in
undertakings which depend on certain products? Are there any studies or reports on this subject?

(2001/C 46 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0633/00
by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: The social and economic effects which the progressive withdrawal of export refunds would have
on the processing and export sector

In view of the World Trade Organisation’s move towards having export refunds reduced or withdrawn,
and in view of the many marketing and export companies which receive export refunds and which are
involved in pre-export production or processing operations, has the Commission given any consideration
to the social and economic effects which the gradual withdrawal of export refunds (which, in the case of
many products, have become essential or crucial to the feasibility of export sales and even to the survival
of companies) would have on the processing and export sector? Can it provide any studies or reports on
the subject?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0631/00 and E-0633/00
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The negotiation approach for agriculture outlined in the communication from the Commission to the
Council and to the Parliament on the EU approach to the Millennium Round (1) is still relevant. In this
communication it was stated that the decisions adopted regarding the reform of the common agricultural
policy (CAP) within the framework of Agenda 2000 would constitute essential elements in defining the
Commission’s negotiating mandate for the future multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organisa-
tion.

This communication does not refer to elimination of export subsidies. It should, however, be recalled that
the decisions taken regarding reform of the CAP would diminish the need for export subsidies, since
market price support is reduced and support to the farmers is granted to a larger degree as direct
payments. As a consequence of such reform measures, agricultural basic products will remain available for
the processing industry at lower prices than at present, and the need for export subsidies for processed
product will also be reduced. In addition, the Commission is considering modernisation of the inward
processing regime with a view to improving transparency and predictability in the administration of the
regime. The Commission is not aware of studies or reports as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) COM(1999) 331 final.

(2001/C 46 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0638/00
by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Aid for farmers

Does the Commission intend to involve Parliament in the process of granting direct aids to producers and
agricultural export subsidies for the period 2000 to 2006? The agricultural sector is continually penalised
13.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/23

by the fact that massive funds are being diverted from it to pay for the reconstruction of Kosovo. It
appears that the Commission once again intends to fly in the face of Parliament’s wishes and give
preference to industry over agriculture, which, against the depressing backdrop of rising unemployment, is
a sector deserving of support.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The amount of direct income payments for those sectors concerned by Agenda 2000 reforms has been
fixed within the Agenda 2000 package. The Parliament participated in Agenda 2000 legislation according
to the relevant rules. Detailed rules for determining export subsidies, have been established for each sector.
The refund amounts are normally fixed after consultation of the relevant management committee. The
Commission has currently no intention to propose any change of these rules.

Supporting democracy, peace and stability in the Kosovo region represents a major challenge for the
Community. For 2001 and 2002 the Commission will propose a decrease of € 300 million in the existing
annual financial perspective ceiling for sub-heading 1a of the Community budget concerning the common
agricultural policy (CAP) excluding rural development, with a corresponding increase in heading four
concerning external relations. It is important to distinguish between the level of the financial perspective
ceiling and the real funding requirements of the CAP. The reduction of the level of the ceiling for sub-
heading 1a does not imply decreased support to farmers nor questioning of the CAP reform decisions
taken in Berlin. In the Commission’s view, the real budgetary needs of the CAP in 2001, based on the
common market organisations as reformed in Berlin, are below the existing ceiling by an amount which is
sufficient to accommodate the reduction of € 300 million.

(2001/C 46 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0640/00
by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Access to the EU interpreting service

1. In addition to the conditions set out in the notice of competition, candidates for competition COM/
LA/1051 for interpreters at the Commission were required to meet the further requirement of having
followed a higher-education course lasting at least four years, a requirement of which they were not
informed until their applications were rejected. How does the Commission explain this poor treatment of
candidates?

2. What educational requirements  specific designation of diploma and type of higher-education
establishment and minimum duration of higher-education studies  were met by applicants from the
various Member States who were admitted to competition COM/LA/1051 and to previous interpreting
competitions?

3. According to paragraph II.B.2 of the notice of open competition COM/LA/1051, the jury was to take
account of the different education systems when making its selection.

(a) Does the Commission base this decision on Directive 89/48/EEC and on the minimum duration for
higher-education studies specified therein?

(b) How does it justify any deviation from full application of that Directive?