WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/01 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Use of fish meal, fish pulp and fish silage.
Date: 2001-10-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal nutrition, animal protein, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, food inspection, genetically modified organism, soya bean, vegetable protein

C 147 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The Association Agreement with Morocco which came into force on 1 March 2000 aims to implement
the objectives of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, which were defined in Barcelona in 1995 and set out
in more detail at the Marseilles Fourth Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Ministers in November
2000. The purpose of economic cooperation with Mediterranean partners is not to set up bilateral
financial compensation mechanisms but to establish a regional free trade area.

In the case of Morocco,
(the main bilateral cooperation
framework for the MEDA programme) does not entail any financial compensation for possible losses
incurred as a result of the risks involved in negotiating the Fishery Agreement.

implementing the Association Agreement

For the period 1995-2000, projects committed under MEDA and the Morocco Protocol totalled € 796,6
million.

For 2000, the figure was €140,6 million, divided among the following priority areas:

2 € 52 million for financial sector adjustment,

2 € 50 million for health sector adjustment,

2 € 27,6 million for the modernisation of the law courts,

2 € 9 million for participatory rural development in Khenifra,

2 € 1,9 million for solid waste management in Essaouira.

For 1995 to 1999 (launching of the MEDA programme), the commitment/payment ratio was 20,9 %, and
for the year 2000, 28 %.

As regards agriculture, the Association Agreement contains a review clause in Article 16, which states that
the Community and Morocco shall gradually implement greater liberalisation of their reciprocal trade in
agricultural and fishery products.

At the meeting of the EU-Morocco Association Council in Luxembourg on 9 October 2001, both parties
declared that the renegotiation of the agriculture Protocols should move into an active phase and be
concluded before the end of 2002. Consequently, at this stage, it is premature and inadvisable to describe
the possible preferential conditions which could apply to Morocco.

The Honourable Member refers to the existing preferences. These are laid out exhaustively in Protocol 1 to
the Council and Commission Decision on the conclusion of the EU-Morocco Association Agreement (1).

(1) OJ L 70, 18.3.2000.

(2002/C 147 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Use of fish meal, fish pulp and fish silage

The great protein deficiency in the EU is currently covered by soya meal, where GMOs have been added to
the seed grain.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/45

What is the Commission’s view on the appropriateness of using soya meal as opposed to the use of fish
meal, fish pulp and fish silage, on the assumption of stricter controls?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

It is estimated that soya meal covers 20 % of EU-15 crude protein use in animal feed. Imports account for
95 % of soya meal uses. Among the three main partners for Community imports, two authorise and grow
genetically modified soybeans.

Currently there is one authorisation granted to genetically modified soya (Round-Up Ready) which covers
the following uses: handling in the environment during import before and during storage, and before and
during its processing to non-viable products. This genetically modified soya may be used in animal
nutrition, this does not mean that all soya meal used for animal nutrition in the Union is produced from
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Following the developments regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), in particular after the
extension of the ban on processed animal meals (1), the Council called on the Commission to analyse the
supply and demand of protein rich plants. In this regard the Commission presented a Communication to
the Council and the Parliament ‘Options to promote the cultivation of plant proteins in the EU’ (2). This
communication concludes that there is no major problem to replace proteins from animal meals by
protein from plants. The best source in this respect is soya meal. However, farmers and the feeding
industry will not react by simply using more soya meal because other alternatives are possible.

The Commission is not in a position to express a view on the appropriateness of using one or other
protein source, as long as they are safe. Indeed the use of any safe feed material in animal nutrition should
be decided by the relevant operators taking into account other criteria such as the type of animal
production (specific feeding requirements) as well as nutritional value, availability of the commodities and
price.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1898/01 by
Mrs Jackson (3). Quite apart from their protein content, the Commission is aware that fisheries products are
a predominant source of long-chained unsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) which are beneficial in nutrition.
On the other hand fisheries products can be contaminated with dioxins. Proposal to establish limit values
for dioxins in food and feed are currently under consideration by Council (4).

(1) Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000. This decision
has been further extended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 (OJ L 177, 30.6.2001).

(2) COM(2001) 148 final.
(3) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 71.
(4) COM(2001) 493 final and COM(2001) 495 final.

(2002/C 147 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Food aid to Russia

According to the Court of Auditors’ Special Report (1) large proportions of food aid were paid over to the
Russian Federation rather than to those in genuine need as originally planned. This has caused disruption
to trade with Russia.