WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. US embargo against Spanish tuna.
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, United States, exchange of information, export, fish, fishing regulations, international organisation, international sanctions, marine mammal, protection of animal life

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/173

The Commission recalls that the improvement, use and maintenance of roads forming part of the trans-
European transport network is the responsibility of the national authorities of the Member States or the
institutions to which the authorities have entrusted the management of these roads. In particular, Member
States must ensure a high level of road safety.

The Commission is prepared to examine the situation referred to by the Honourable Member in more
detail on the basis of a full dossier on the subject to be sent to it.

(2002/C 115 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: US embargo against Spanish tuna

(17 October 2001)

Laying down rules on the statistical tracking of tuna is a fundamental requirement for compliance with the
Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP). The lack of such rules in
Spanish legislation led to a US embargo being placed on imports of yellowfin tuna and derived products
from Spain on 3 August 2000.

Spain has since incorporated the rules required under the AIDCP into its legislation. Even though the
Spanish Government has now complied with the above requirement, however, the North American
authorities have still not lifted the embargo on the fresh grounds that Spain is not a member of the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the RFO which is at the origin of the requirement.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does the Commission not consider the continuation of the US embargo to be totally unjustified, given that
Spain has now incorporated the relevant rules into its legislation and has even applied for IATTC
membership, which has so far been refused?

What steps has the Commission taken or will it take to resolve this situation, which is seriously harming
the Community firms involved?

What steps has it taken or will it take to offset the damage already caused to those firms?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the current situation regarding the embargo applied by the United States
on countries that have not received an ‘affirmative finding’ under American law to enable exporting
countries to market their tuna and tuna products on the American market. One of the requirements is that
a tuna tracking and verification system as defined in the Agreement for the International Conservation of
Dolphins (AIDCP) is applied by the exporting country. However, this is not the sole element to be
considered by the United States in its determination. Another element taken into account by the United
States in its determination is the membership of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

The Commission is fully aware that Spain has introduced national legislation implementing a tuna tracking
system as required by the AIDCP and the Community is currently discussing within the Council a
Community tuna tracking and verification system that would meet the AIDCP requirements.

As the Honourable Member is well aware, neither Spain nor the Community are members of this
organisation, and as a result this effectively means that the United States will not be inclined to issue an
‘affirmative finding’ until membership of IATTC is resolved. The Commission is of the view that this
double requirement of being a member of the IATTC and having a tuna tracking and verification system as
defined in the AIDCP is contradictory.

C 115 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Contacts have been undertaken with the United States on several occasions on this issue, the last being
during the bilateral High Level Consultations with the United States in July 2001. The United States have
promised to further examine this question and the Commission is currently in active consultations with
the American authorities to resolve this problem.

The Commission is not aware of any material injury suffered by European industry as a result of this
embargo, therefore, it is not in a position to take any remedial measures. However, it is not out of the
question that the Commission may examine this American policy in the context of the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) as regards a trade restrictive measure.

(2002/C 115 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2847/01

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Moselle/Saône-Rhône wide waterway link

The Commission has been asked to consider whether a Moselle/Sâone-Rhône wide waterway link could be
of European interest. Building the canals needed to link the Moselle, the Saône and the Rhône would
involve also linking the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the North Sea and the Baltic by a system of rivers
and canals. The Seine, Rhine, Rhône and Moselle basins are likely to remain dead-ends if there is no scope
for economic development on this north-south axis, at the centre of a large-scale ‘euro-corridor’.

The system mentioned above would offer the following advantages:

B each 3000 tonne barge is the equivalent of some 200 heavy lorries, freeing road capacity, which is of

course an environmental benefit;

B the tonne/kilometre cost of each container is estimated to be about half that of rail freight;

B hydroelectric schemes are compatible with the aims of the Kyoto Protocol on climatic change.

The cost of a Moselle-Saône wide waterway link would be some 4 billion euros, which amount would
serve to remove congestion at the junction of the largest international traffic flows.

What is the Commission’s view of this project?

Does the Commission intend to carry out studies to assess its benefits and feasibility?

What Community funding could be provided (for example under the TENs)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Two requests for funding concerning the project to create a Moselle/Sâone-Rhône link were indeed
received by the Commission in 2000 under Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995
laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European
networks (1). These requests concerned the study into and work of raising the height of bridges and
deepening the Moselle.

An examination of these applications showed that the technical maturity of the corresponding projects was
not sufficiently proven. Moreover, the amounts requested were less than € 1 million. Parliament has
recommended that, as a general rule, the Commission should not grant funding for trans-European
network projects of less than € 1 million. Having regard moreover to the whole of the budget available in
2000, the Commission therefore decided, in cooperation with the French authorities, to give priority to
projects in France which are technically more mature and involve higher amounts.