WRITTEN QUESTION No. 544/99 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union
Date: 1999-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: aid to industry, aquaculture, cannery, export refund, fishery product, food aid, health control, import policy, monetary compensatory amount, tariff reduction

C 370/56

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.12.1999

conclusions to which, inter alia, it declared the tuna canning industry is the most important Community
canning sector in terms of employment and the volume of trade, and that to encourage the huge growth
prospects in this sector there is a need:

to ensure that compensation is granted to third countries for the purposes laid down in
(...)
Community provisions, sustainable development (ACP), the fight against drugs (GSP-drugs, Andean
Pact), and that countries which enjoy privileged access to the Community market do not operate in
social dumping conditions.

Can the Commission say what measures have been adopted to comply with Parliament’s request and
thereby encourage the growth prospects in the Community tuna canning industry?

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

(1999/C 370/080)

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