WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98)(1), in the conclusions to which, inter alia, it called on the Commission, "in view of the fact that canning preserves a food's nutritional properties and facilitates its storage and transport under optimum conditions, to promote the inclusion of Community canned goods in its policy of humanitarian food aid to needy countries".

Can the Commission say what measures have been taken to comply with Parliament's request?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0524/99, E-0525/99, E-0527/99, E-0528/99, E-0529/99,E-0530/99, E-0531/99, E-0532/99, E-0533/99, E-0534/99, E-0535/99, E-0537/99,E-0538/99, E-0539/99, E-0540/99, E-0541/99 and E-0544/99 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

With respect to the question of a study on the situation of the canning industry, in its 1999 work programme the Commission provides for the submission of a proposal for a Regulation on the collection of basic fisheries data. This would also provide for the collection of certain economic data on the processing industry, including the canning industry.

Concerning aid for the fishery and aquaculture product canning industry, the Commission would point out that this is part of the structural programmes in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. Such programmes almost always contain sections on "processing and marketing of products", "promotion" and "pilot projects". The management authority designated by the Member State is responsible for choosing individual projects, including those to assist the canning industry. It must be emphasised that any support from public funds for promotional campaigns centred on the Community origin of a particular product would constitute discrimination contrary to the Community's international commitments, above all within the framework of the WTO.

The Community's tariff rules follow on from its trade policy. They include preferential tariff arrangements granted either on an autonomous basis (such as the generalised system of preferences (GSP) or supply policy) or under an agreement such as the Lomé Convention or free trade agreements. These tariff reductions are revised on a regular basis, either with regular updates in the case of tariff quotas and autonomous tariff suspensions or in accordance with a procedure laid down in the legal instrument introducing the reductions (GSP, Lomé Convention, Europe Agreements, etc.). Accordingly new GSP arrangements for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 entered into force recently and the new Lomé Convention is being negotiated with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. Evidently any commercial advantages which are no longer justified are abolished in the course of these revisions and renegotiations.

The Community's development cooperation policy may involve privileged access to the Community market for products from beneficiary countries. Products imported within this framework are subject to the same constraints and legal requirements as those produced in the Community, and so the simple fact that they benefit from a tariff reduction does not amount to unfair competition. If certain products originating in a third country are more competitive because of lower labour costs for instance, a compensatory aid system would not necessarily make Community industry more competitive. Such a system would, moreover, be contrary to the Community's international commitments.

The Commission is in the process of reviewing the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption, as laid down in Commission Decision 97/296/EC of 22 April 1997 drawing up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption(1) (last amended by Commission Decision 99/136/EC of 28 January 1999(2)). Only those countries which have provided guarantees that fishery products exported to the Community meet the health requirements laid down for the protection of consumer health by Community legislation are included in the list. In order to verify that the hygiene provisions in these third countries are at least equivalent to those governing the production and placing in the market of Community products, the Commission carries out checks on the competent authorities. These include evaluation of the legislation, the competent authority and its inspection services as well as hygiene conditions during the production, storage and dispatch of fishery products intended for the Community.

The Commission also carries out inspection and control missions to monitor the performance of the authorities, including inspections of individual establishments to assess compliance with the relevant legislation on the spot. The decision on which third countries are to be visited by Commission inspectors is made on the basis of risk assessment procedures centred on consumer health protection criteria. The Commission is currently involved in an intensive programme of visits to third countries with the aim of evaluating the performance of the authorities responsible for enforcing the health standards for fishery products as laid down in Community legislation, particularly Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(3) and Council Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs3. The inspection of third countries in the field of fishery products and live bivalve molluscs has been considered a priority in the framework of the mission programme for 1999. About 30 missions in this field have already been planned for the first half of 1999. A total of approximately 50 missions are expected to be carried out during 1999.

As part of the reform of the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products, the Commission proposed total or partial tariff suspensions on an autonomous basis for an unspecified duration for species which the Community either cannot supply or can supply only in insufficient quantities, to ensure more competitive and stable supply conditions for the processing industry.

With regard to the reference laboratories, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to his Written Question No 3971/98(4).

A political debate was started more than a year ago on the question of how to improve the operation of preferential tariff arrangements, in particular with regard to the application and monitoring of rules of origin. The Commission expressed its opinion in its July 1997 communication on the management of preferential tariff arrangements, the Internal Market Council in its conclusions of 18 May 1998 and Parliament in Mr Nordmann's report adopted on 21 October 1998. The Commission proposed a programme of reform of the preferential tariff arrangements (some of which is already underway) which takes account of the overall issue.

In the recent reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil (Council Regulation (EC) 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(5)), the Council followed the Commission's proposal that it maintain the principle of granting a production refund for olive oils used to manufacture certain preserves. The level of the refund is fixed taking into account the world price of olive oil. This is essentially fixed in the Community which, with 80 % of world production, is the principal operator in this sector. Since there have been no export refunds for almost a year now (except for a short period in September 1998 when refunds were granted at ECU 10 per 100 kg), the Commission decided to adjust the level of refunds for olive oil used in the manufacture of preserves. This moved steadily from ECU 67,18 per 100 kg in January 1998 to ECU 44 per 100 kg in November 1998 to take account of the market situation while maintaining a significant amount of refund in order to continue to support this specific sector.

With respect to possible compensation for canning facilities facing crisis, the Honourable Member is referred to Article 17(1)(c) of the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(6).

The Community canning industry largely relies on imports to meet its raw materials requirements. To allow this sector to compete with products manufactured in third countries, import duties on tuna as a raw material have been suspended entirely (except for loin of tuna). A compensatory allowance for tuna was introduced in 1970 to compensate Community producers for disadvantages arising from the import arrangements for tuna as a raw material destined for the processing industry. If import prices fall producers are granted an allowance under certain conditions which guarantees a certain level of income for products sold in the Community. This allowance system rests on a Community production price which is fixed each year by the Council following a proposal from the Commission and is based on the average price over the previous three marketing years. As the Honourable Member pointed out, loin of tuna is also one of the raw materials used by the Community canning industry. This product is not covered by the compensatory allowance and is subject to a tariff duty of 24 %. The canning industry uses this raw material more and more, and has to obtain its supplies on the international market to meet its growing requirements. Limited tariff quotas were opened in 1997 (1 000 tonnes at 12 %), 1998 (1 200 tonnes at 9 %) and 1999 (1 200 tonnes at 6 %).

To help the Community canning industry compete with third countries more successfully, the Commission proposed a partial suspension of the tariff duty on an autonomous basis within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the market.

With regard to the tariff concessions under the Lomé Convention and under the GSP "Drugs" scheme for tuna, imports under preferential tariff arrangements have a positive impact on the producers of these products in the beneficiary countries. Since these arrangements boost job creation by providing an alternative economic activity to growing drugs and encourage development, they would appear justified.

The Commission gives priority to the purchase and transport of canned products within the framework of its emergency food aid measures for third countries. In accordance with the provisions of the framework partnership contract, the operational partners are responsible for purchasing products and services, and for shipment, transport and storage. Humanitarian organisations have to take the necessary steps to ensure that foodstuffs are in line with local customs and needs as much as possible and are the most suitable in terms of quality, cost, period of validity and availability. The contract also stipulates that humanitarian organisations should place their orders preferably in the country in which the operation is being carried out or in other countries in the region. If products are not available or are too expensive, orders may be placed in the Community or, failing this, in developing countries. In exceptional cases, orders may be placed in other developed countries for technical reasons, for reasons of quality, unavailability on the above markets, shortage or costs of transport.

(1) OJ L 122, 14.5.1997.

(2) OJ L 44, 18.2.1999.

(3) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

(4) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999.

(5) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998.

(6) COM(98) 728 final, OJ C 16, 21.1.1999.