EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/460

(2004/C 84 E/0535)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0661/03

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

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Tariffs on imports of tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

Following the fourth WTO Ministerial Conference held in Doha (Qatar) in November 2001, in the course of the negotiations intended to secure approval of the waiver needed for the EU to be granted authorisation allowing it to maintain tariff preferences with the ACP countries, Thailand and the Philippines made their votes conditional upon improved access for their tinned tuna to the Community market. The Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, undertook merely to hold a series of consultations on the subject, which concluded without any agreement and with the EU proposing to go through a mediation process before the WTO, a procedure which is not legally binding. Following the mediation, the mediator, Mr Rufus Yerxa, proposed the possible opening of a quota of 25 000 tonnes of tinned tuna as a finished product at a 12 % tariff. A considerable period of time has elapsed since the Doha Ministerial Conference, and the European Union currently intends to adopt a regulation accepting the proposal put forward by the mediator, against the opposition of the two main tinned tuna-producing countries in the European Union, as well as the opposition of the entire EU tuna-fishing and tuna-processing and canning industry.

1. Can the Commission say what studies it has carried out to assess the impact which the opening of this quota will have on the tuna-fishing and canning industry in the European Union? If no such studies have been carried out, does the Commission not consider that, before granting any type of preferences to third countries, an impact assessment should be carried out to evaluate the effects which this measure will have on the tuna-fishing and canning industry in the European Union and on the workers employed in these sectors in the Community?

2. Can the Commission say whether the commitment given by Commissioner Lamy in Doha was solely to open consultations with Thailand and the Philippines?

3. On this subject, Commissioner Lamy has stated that the only commitment given was to open consultations with Thailand and the Philippines. Can the Commission therefore explain why the European Union would lose credibility if it did not grant preferences to Thailand and the Philippines, if there was no commitment other than to open consultations?

4. Can the Commission explain why, if the mediation process is a procedure which is not binding on the parties and it was established in the course of the European Union's consultations with Thailand and the Philippines that there was no need to grant any type of tariff preference for the parties, it has now become necessary to grant a tariff concession to Thailand and the Philippines?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Prior to deciding to recommend the adoption of the Mediator's proposal that the Community should open a quota of 25 000 tons of canned tuna at 12 % duty, the Commission examined the proposal closely. The Commission analysed all the information at its disposal concerning the industry and Community trade in the product. It examined the potential effects on trade in canned tuna and on the sector as a whole, giving due weight to the concerns and interests of the Community industry, but also examined the possible effect on its relations with Thailand, Philippines and other World Trade Organisation (WTO) members of rejecting the Mediator's opinion. Following that analysis, the Commission decided to recommend to Member States that the Mediator's opinion be adopted. The Commission, therefore, considers that it would not be necessary to carry out further analysis such as an impact study of the type referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission refers to its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0162/03 (1) for a full explanation of the commitment of the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade at Doha but would remind the Honourable Member that, from the outset, the Community agreed to enter into mediation if consultations on the matter failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution.

The Commission considers that the credibility of the Community in the WTO would be seriously damaged if the mediator's opinion is not adopted as the Community has consistently been a keen advocate for respect and application of WTO rules and procedures.

(1) See page 457.