WRITTEN QUESTION E-0408/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Different rates of import duty for Alaska pollack and hoki (longtail hake) (7,5 %).
Date: 2000-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CCT duties, common fisheries policy, sea fish

C 46 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

I would therefore ask the Commission:

(cid:129) how can it possibly ask the Council to open tuna fillet quotas year after year when it possesses no
data whatsoever on either the quantities of this product entering the Union under the quotas in
question, or the Member State companies importing it?

(cid:129) what sort of checks does the Commission actually carry out on these imports, which are of direct
relevance to a major Community industry in which large numbers of jobs and major investments are
at stake?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 95.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

In Written Question E-2310/99 (1), the Honourable Member only requested information about private
companies in Thailand (a list of Thai companies which export tuna fillets to the Community and the
amounts exported by each company) and within the Community (a list of Community companies which
import these products, and an indication of their location).

As the Commission stated in its answer, it is unable to provide information about the trading activities of
private companies since it does not possess such data.

When drafting proposals for quotas for fishery products, the Commission refers in particular to global data
regarding the utilisation of these quotas and to requests made by the authorities in the Member States.

As regards checks on imports to which these quotas apply, the Commission and the Member States apply
the provisions laid out in Articles 308a to 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July
1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establish-
ing the Community Customs Code (2).

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 95.
(2) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

(2001/C 46 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0408/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Different rates of import duty for Alaska pollack and hoki (longtail hake) (7,5 %)

For the period January (cid:129) March 2000 different customs duties are to be applied on items previously
subject to the same rate of duty. Since the beginning of the year Alaska pollack has accordingly been
subject to a duty of 3,5 %, while hoki (longtail hake) has been subject to a duty of 7,5 %. This cannot be
justified by efforts to husband resources since Alaska pollack is being endangered by overfishing while
stocks of hoki are still plentiful.

In view of this:

1. what were the reasons for this one-sided increase in duties in hoki?

2. what are the general objectives behind these customs duties?

3. Can the Commission give information regarding stocks of the above fish species and any corrective

measures envisaged?

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/9

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The conventional customs duty on frozen fillets of hoki (Macruronus novaezealandiae) is 7,5 %. However,
an autonomous tariff quota of 20 000 tonnes at 3,5 % duty was opened for the period 1 April to
31 December 1999 (1).

Compared to Alaska pollack, the Community processing industry(cid:146)s use of hoki is recent and relatively
limited. Consequently,
like most other autonomous tariff quotas intended to supply the Community
market, the quota period does not cover the first three months of the year, when the conventional
customs duty applies.

However, in the context of reforming the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture
products (2), the Council decided in favour of effectively suspending tariff duty on hoki by applying a
reduced tariff without quantitative restrictions pending a future solution for supplying the market with this
species. The Commission had proposed that customs duty for hoki should be 3,5 % (the same as for Alaska
pollack) (3). In view of Germany(cid:146)s request, the Council nevertheless decided to suspend customs duty on
Alaska pollack.

Stocks of Alaska pollack have admittedly been heavily fished, while hoki has been identified as a less-used
species. However, the Community processing industry(cid:146)s supply needs appear to demonstrate that hoki is
not yet able to offset the decreasing availability of Alaska pollack.

Community policy is to promote multilateral management of fish stocks, particularly through regional
fishery organisations. Although not directly involved in managing stocks of the two species to which the
Honourable Member refers, the Community encourages their responsible management within the frame-
work of the international organisations dealing with fisheries (the Food and Agriculture Organisation of
the United Nations (FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 745/1999 of 30 March 1999 opening and providing for the administration of

autonomous Community tariff quotas for certain fishery products (cid:129) OJ L 96, 10.4.1999.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in

fishery and aquaculture products (cid:129) OJ L 17, 21.1.2000.

(3) Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture

products (cid:129) OJ C 78, 20.3.1999.

(2001/C 46 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Indicative allocation of ERDF resources earmarked for investment in Galicia as an Objective I

region during the 200-2006 period

Replying to one of my questions (E-1433/99) (1) on 21 December 1999, Commissioner Barnier said, on
the subject of the geographical distribution of ERDF financial resources during the 2000-2006 period, that
the Commission would indicate to Member States, as a guide, the amount that should be made available to
each eligible region if the method used by the Commission to allocate Objective 1 resources to each of the
Member States were applied at national level.