WRITTEN QUESTION E-2793/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Blackmailing of Community exporters.
Date: 2000-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, customs document, customs formalities, export (EU), import restriction

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/97

(2001/C 136 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2922/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: The killing of dolphins

Is the Commission concerned about the death and suffering of large numbers of dolphins caught in fishing
nets and why did the Commission choose not to attend the third meeting of the Agreement on the
Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (Ascobans) which took place in Bristol on
28 July at which representatives of eight northern European states agreed to send a strong message to the
Commission calling on it to include action to reduce the annual death toll in its current review of the
Common Fisheries Policy?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2791/00 and E-2922/00
given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission is worried about the amount of cetacean and other by-catches in connection with
fisheries. The Commission welcomes the efforts of members of the agreement on the conservation of small
in reducing cetacean by-catches of fisheries. The
cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (Ascobans)
Commission hopes that
the
Community.

the Member States will continue their efforts at

the Council

level of

Due to a heavy workload in the field of nature protection and insufficient resources, the Commission had
to decline the invitation to attend as an observer the last Ascobans conference in Bristol.

However, even if the Community is not a party to the Ascobans agreement, dolphins and porpoises are
protected in the framework of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). According to Article 12, in particular, the Member States
shall establish a system of strict protection for those animal species in their natural range prohibiting
deliberate capture and disturbance. The Member States shall also establish a system to monitor incidental
capture and killing.

The Commission reminded Member States of their duty recently in the last meeting of the committee
under the habitats directive.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 136 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2793/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Blackmailing of Community exporters

It is possible that Community exporters are open to blackmail by importers in third countries because of
the stringent rules governing the approval of import documents; in certain cases, a customs document that
may possibly be missing has been (mis)used by importers to pressurise exporters into granting unlawful
discounts, etc as a condition for returning the original customs document properly signed and stamped.

Exporters may in such cases use secondary documentation, but national intervention bodies are in practice
extremely restrictive about approving such documents.

C 136 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Will the Commission look at the advantages and drawbacks of taking the principles set out in Decision
No 1999/2497/EC of 28 July 1999 (on alternative primary documentation destined for Russia) as a basis
for new primary documentation applicable to countries other than Russia, i.e. ranking equally with the
customs document?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Proof of completion of customs formalities for importation into third countries is given at the exporter(cid:146)s
choice by production of the customs import document or an attestation of unloading and importation
made out by a supervisory agency. The latter option is provided to facilitate matters for exporters, who
may indeed be subjected to pressure by importers in connection with the transmission of the customs
document.

The Decision (1) of 28 July 1999 on proof of arrival at destination of agricultural products exported to
Russia was adopted in the very specific context of persistent malfunctioning of local administration in that
country. This was a temporary decision, recently extended to 30 June 2001 owing to continuation of the
problem.

The Decision states that it is planned to create a system of mutual information transmission between the
Commission and the Russian authorities that would obviate the need for application of the Decision in the
future.

In July an administrative agreement was signed by the Anti-Fraud Office and the State Customs Committee
of the Russian Federation that will permit creation of the system, which ought to give a boost to correct
application of customs procedures in Russia and lead to greater certainty concerning refund payments in
the Community.

The Commission does not at the moment intend to extend provisions of the type contained in the
Decision to exports to other countries.

(1) COM(1999) 2497.

(2001/C 136 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2794/00

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: EU ban on force-feeding of geese

P(cid:226)tØ de foie gras is a very expensive delicacy and its production requires geese to be force-fed, resulting in
the development of a fatty liver.

The fatty liver represents a pathological change to the liver. With current fattening methods the organ
becomes ten times larger than normal and at the end of the fattening period weighs about 1 000 gms. It is
85 % fat and thus has a very high cholesterol content.

For foie gras to be produced, geese and ducks have to undergo horrific torture. The procedure involves the
animals having a large metal tube pushed down the neck into the stomach several times a day. The
frequent insertion of this tube often causes wounds to the beak and the oesophagus. Hundreds of ducks
and geese are fed one after another in this horrible manner.

Force-feeding is already prohibited in Germany and Austria. However, there is great demand for p(cid:226)tØ de
foie gras in Germany. In 1992, 100 tonnes (equivalent to DEM 15 million in value) were imported from
France, Hungary and Israel alone. Annual world production is about 14 000 tonnes. About 14 million
ducks and geese must therefore be used for the production of foie gras.

Is the force-feeding of geese in any way compatible with animal welfare?