WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: Abuse by animal-meal exporters of discrepancies in trading statistics

1. Can the Commission confirm that since customs checks were abolished, it has not been possible since 1993 for reliable statistics to be compiled for the volume of products traded and transported across internal European Union borders?

2. Can the Commission further confirm date published in Le Monde showing that figures relating to the trade in animal meal on either side of the Franco-Belgian and Netherlands-Belgian borders coincided up to 1992, but absolutely not thereafter, in that the Netherlands claims to have exported much more to Belgium in 1993 and 1994 than Belgium received, and France imported much larger quantities of Belgian animal meal than Belgium claims to have exported?

3. Can the Commission confirm that publicly available data show that following the introduction of domestic restrictions on the use of offal, the British offal industry managed to survive by sharply stepping up its exports, to the extent that the quantities exported in 1989 were nearly four times greater than in 1988, while very strong growth in imports of Irish animal meal into other EU Member States were recorded over the same period?

4. Is the assumption not inescapable that, starting in1993, large quantities of British animal meal were shipped to the Netherlands and Belgium as Irish animal meal, and that a substantial part thereof subsequently found its way into France?

5. How will the Commission act to ensure that import and export statistics can no longer be falsified, and that there can no longer be any doubt concerning the origin of dangerous and controversial products that are not wanted by consumers or processing firms?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

1. and 2. Completion of the single market in 1993 did indeed lead to the institution of a system for collecting statistical information on trade in goods between Member States (Intrastat) which was separate from customs formalities and was based on direct collection from businesses. The system had teething troubles for the first years following its introduction; in particular, most Member States had persistent problems of non-response or late response by some businesses, which impaired the quality or availability of the Community statistics. The situation has steadily improved and the system now allows a satisfactory response to most users' requirements, especially within the economic and monetary union.

However, Intrastat is ill-suited to accounting for trade flows at the level of individual traded products (over 10 000 products are listed and codified in the nomenclature), for two main reasons:

- A threshold was established to minimise the burden on small and medium-sized firms (SMEs), while ensuring certain quality standards. It exempts companies up to a certain annual volume of business from making statistical returns on their trade. This loss of information is offset by adjustments to the aggregated results. In 2001, for example, this threshold is 245 000 in Belgium, 225 000 in the Netherlands and 100 000 in France (where the same return is used for statistical and tax purposes). The threshold arrangements of course have a direct impact on the accuracy of the results for a specific item and on the comparison of trade between trading partners in the Community. Similarly, non-response is offset in most Member States by adjustments which are not always specified at the most detailed level of the nomenclature.

- Whereas statistics were collected before 1993 for every cross-border movement on the basis of customs declarations, the Intrastat system depends on statistical returns made a posteriori, e.g. on the basis of suppliers' invoices. Difficulties in identifying the Member State which is the real partner (the state of dispatch or destination) are thus inherent in the system and necessarily affect the comparison of mirror flows.

Animal meal currently falls under subheading 2301 10 00 of the Combined Nomenclature, which comprises flours, meals and pellets, of meat or offal, unfit for human consumption; greaves. These are obtained from the processing either of whole carcasses or of parts of carcasses (meat, offal) and the content of this subheading cannot be specified in greater detail.

Scrutiny of the figures shows that the discrepancies in mirror statistics for intra-Community flows increased substantially from 1993 onwards. Dispatches from the Netherlands to the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union (BLEU) in 1993 and 1994 are indeed higher than the corresponding arrivals declared by the BLEU. However, the reverse is true from 1995 onwards. The figures also show that arrivals from the BLEU in France are indeed higher than the equivalent dispatches declared by the BLEU.

3. and 4. The information and data supplied are not adequate to allow the Commission to confirm these allegations.

5. Commission Decision 97/735/EC of 21 October 1997 concerning certain protection measures with regard to trade in certain types of mammalian animal waste(1) and Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures required for the implementation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein(2) lay down strict control rules to guarantee the traceability of the movements of processed animal proteins, including meat-and-bone meal, within the Community. Commission experts from the Food and Veterinary Office carry out regular on-the-spot checks in all Member States to verify the correct implementation of Community legislation. Should it appear to the Commission after establishing the facts that a Member State is not fulfilling its obligations, the Commission is prepared to take all necessary action within its power in order to secure compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ L 294, 28.10.1997. Decision last amended by Council Decision 1999/534/EC of 19 July 1999 (OJ L 204, 4.8.1999).

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001. Decision last amended by Commission Decision 2001/165/EC of 27 February 2001 (OJ L 58, 28.2.2001).