WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Distortion of competition due to disparities in national and regional BSE measures.
Date: 2001-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, State aid, aid to agriculture, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, control of State aid, regional aid, restriction on competition, support policy

C 261 E/200

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

According to Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 the Commission is committed to present to the Parliament and
the Council a report on electronic identification before 31 December 2001. No other alternative
identification has been foreseen.

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.
(2) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.
(3) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000.

(2001/C 261 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/01

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Sea bass fishing situation

Nearly a year ago a written question (E-1334/00) (1) was tabled on the sea bass fishing situation and on
stock levels of that species. The situation hardly seems to be improving. On the contrary, the volume of
sea bass caught with trawl nets is reported to have soared.

The question consequently arises of whether to introduce a special fishing permit, one that would be
exceptional and non-transferrable, to ensure a return to catch levels compatible with the capacity of stocks
to renew themselves.

The question also arises of suspending fishing operations generally during the period of greatest
vulnerability, viz. 15 February to 31 March.

What does the Commission think of those two suggestions?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 28.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

As indicated in the response to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question (1), the Commission, requested
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to report on the state of exploitation of bass
stocks in the north-east Atlantic and to suggest technical means by which problems might be solved. The
appropriate working group of ICES is expected to report on this topic in May 2001. The report will be the
basis of further consideration of this topic by the Commission.

Either of the possibilities put forward by the Honourable Member is conceivable but, until ICES has
reported and until the Commission has undertaken its further considerations, it is premature to decide on
precise management measures.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.

(2001/C 261 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Distortion of competition due to disparities in national and regional BSE measures

Two days after the failed Agriculture Council of Monday, 26 February, the French Government decided to
make 8,5 billion francs available for assistance to cattle farmers affected by the BSE crisis. The Commission
has to be informed of the measure in advance, stating detailed reasons. It can enter into force only once

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/201

the Commission has given the go-ahead. The French Minister of Agriculture, Glavany, already considers
that his proposal complies (cid:145)perfectly(cid:146) with the criteria stated by the Commission.

As long ago as the January 2001 plenary, the Commission and Council were explicitly warned against
distortion of competition arising from the very disparate support measures. Despite this, the fifteen
agriculture ministers and the Commission still have not succeeded in working out a common European
framework for the financial consequences of the BSE crisis.

While there is huge uncertainty about compensation for the damage which has been suffered, Agriculture
Commissioner Franz Fischler and the Council are passing the parcel to and fro between themselves. On the
evening of Wednesday, 17 January, the Council announced that it was aware of the risks of distortion of
competition arising from the systems of compensation for the collection and disposal of risk material and
(H-0002/01 (1)). In reply to question H-0003/01 (2)
the embargo of December 2000 on animal meal
concerning a coordinated approach, Agriculture Commissioner Fischler laconically referred to the common
organisation of the market in beef and the requirement to notify fiscal and parafiscal measures.

1. What view does the Commission take of the French Government(cid:146)s measure to provide financial
assistance to cattle farmers affected by the BSE crisis? Does this measure comply (cid:145)perfectly(cid:146) with the criteria
adopted by the Commission?

2. Which EU Member States have so far notified the Commission that they intend to adopt national
support measures? Do these measures accord with the criteria adopted by the Commission?

(1) Written answer of 17.1.2001.
(2) Written answer of 16.1.2001.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The Commission has indeed been notified by the French authorities of a scheme to compensate stock
farmers affected by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. In close cooperation with those
authorities, it is currently examining the draft aid scheme in the light of Article 87 (formerly Article 92) of
the EC Treaty. The Commission is not yet therefore in a position to deliver an opinion on the decision that
it will adopt concerning the aid(cid:146)s compatibility with the Community competition rules.

To date, Italy, Ireland and Spain (cid:129) at the level of the autonomous communities (cid:129) and Germany (cid:129) at the
level of the L(cid:228)nder (cid:129) have also notified similar measures directed at stock farmers affected by the BSE
crisis. All these measures are under examination by the Commission and, consequently,
it is not yet
possible to come to a conclusion about the compatibility of the notified aid schemes.

(2001/C 261 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0821/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Substandard subsidised tobacco

Can the Commission give details about the identity of the principal recipients of the tobacco which is
grown within the EU and which benefits from enormous subsidies (almost € 1 000 million) under the
common agricultural policy? Can it confirm that a substantial proportion is exported to non-EU countries
because it is substandard and that it is used in the manœfacture of high-tar and/or high-nicotine cigarettes?