# CE2004078EN.01077201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/772 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/772

---

(2004/C 78 E/0822)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3008/03

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Unequal conditions of competition for the fish processing industry in the EU Member States

Subject:

The fish processing industry in the Northern EU Member States is completely dependent on having raw materials available under the same conditions as its competitors outside the EU. The EU countries often do not have sufficient access to raw materials in their own waters and are therefore forced to import them. One raw material which is giving rise to particular concern is herring.

While the Norwegian processing industry has cheap access to herring because of the large herring stocks in Norwegian waters, the Northern EU countries' producers are forced to pay higher prices — often an additional duty of 15 % — to have access to the same raw materials by importing them from none other than Norway.

By reason of various preferential agreements, it has at the same time become easier for foreign producers — including Norwegian producers — to supply the EU market with semi-finished and finished products. On the other hand there is, as we have seen, unequal access to raw materials. This gives rise to unequal conditions of competition.

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that the herring industry in the EU states can operate under equal conditions of competition with the EU's neighbouring countries — including the herring industry in Norway.

A flood of preferential agreements and customs quotas has undermined the structure of customs duties on the import of fish and fisheries products, apparently without any benefit to anyone. As a result, the Northern EU countries' processing industry cannot obtain the raw materials it needs, while finished products from selected countries have easy access to the EU's market.

What does the Commission propose to do to promote a simpler and more transparent set of rules for customs duties on imported fish and fishery products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

(31 October 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the concerns which the Honourable Member expresses about the situation of supplies of herring as raw material for the Community's processing industry. In actual fact, there is a need to maintain and, as appropriate, improve the competitiveness of the processing industry throughout the Community with due regard to all relevant factors.

Over many years, motions to suspend the tariff for herring as raw material have formed the subject matter of rather protracted discussions with Member States. Yet, diametrically opposed views on this have been consistently held. Denmark's repeated calls for far-reaching tariff suspensions always encountered stiff opposition mainly from Ireland but also from the United Kingdom, both of whom argued with the peculiarities of the fisheries on pelagic fish stocks, the dependency of their respective fishing communities upon these fisheries and the principle of Community preference. This has resulted not in a simple and clear set rules for customs duties but rather in a mix of measures (duty-free period, autonomous tariff quota and a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) quota) designed to balance these conflicting interests with each other.

Tariff concessions agreed with third countries may add to the complexity of applicable custom duties. Yet, these regimes have a logic of their own. Thus, the tariff quotas agreed upon with Norway and Iceland in the framework of European Economic Area (EEA) Enlargement negotiations have been shaped to take into consideration the impending enlargement of the Union and the interests of the incoming new Member States.

In the wake of EEA Enlargement negotiations, there have already been renewed calls for complete tariff suspensions for fresh herring and mackerel, on the one hand, and announcements of opposition to any further tariff alleviation for the said products, on the other. It also appears that it is not so much the present tariff situation, which exacerbates the supply needs of the processing industries of certain Member States, but rather the practice of many Community fishing vessels to land their catches of herring into Norwegian ports. This is due to the geographical particularities of the fisheries on Atlanto-Scandian herring in the Northeast Atlantic. One might query whether tariff policy is the appropriate tool to cope with that.

Another aspect of interest is a greatly improved stock situation of North Sea herring. The emergency measures, to which this stock has been subject over many years, are now paying off. Thus, huge quantities of herring will become available for the Community in the years to come. This might induce certain Member States to argue that the quantities of herring now available to the Community are of such a magnitude that adequate supplies of the Community's processing industries are ensured.

It is clear that ongoing World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations on market access and tariffs will lead to overall tariff reductions eventually. In the meantime, exploratory talks with Member States on a new multi-annual tariff quota system for the period 2004 to 2006 to address short-term needs are under way. The Commission approaches this with an open mind and hopes that this exploratory process will yield results which would allow to come forward with operative proposals capable of mustering the widest possible support from Member States.

---