WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/02 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Cost of food safety measures to producers.
Date: 2002-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, State aid, agro-industry, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, control of State aid, food inspection, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, production cost, restriction on competition

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/73

Would the Council therefore agree that it is necessary for Community harmonisation for public funding to
cover these costs as an emergency measure to prevent them falling to producers and to prevent any
distortion of competition.

Reply

(21 May 2002)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies provides for tests to be applied strictly in all the Member States. The Regulation does not
make provision for any financial
intervention from the Community budget. However, a Community
contribution of EUR 15 per test was decided on earlier under the Commission/Standing Veterinary
Committee procedure, by way of specific measures to deal with BSE. This contribution from the veterinary
fund is intended to cover the purchase of testing kits. Otherwise, the Member States take such measures as
they deem appropriate under their own administrative arrangements, with due regard for Community
rules.

Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef
and veal expressly provides that, unless stated otherwise, the EC Treaty articles on national aids affecting
competition (Articles 87, 88 and 89) are to apply to the production of and trade in beef and veal.
Specifically, this means that the Member States are under a duty to notify the Commission of any aid they
grant in the sector and that the Commission must decide whether that aid is compatible with the common
market.

However, the President of the Council emphasised early in January when the Presidency’s priorities were
submitted to the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture that in the interests of strict compliance
with the internal market rules, it would be a good idea for there to be increased harmonisation of the
various support measures which Member States had brought in to combat the effects of BSE. However, the
Council has not yet had the opportunity of giving its views on the matter, as the Commission has not
submitted any proposal on the subject.

(2002/C 205 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Cost of food safety measures to producers

The costs of Community measures taken in order to protect consumer health (tests for SRM and MBM) are
considerable. Does the Commission not think that the failure to harmonise regulations relating to costs
incurred by the application of health measures taken at Community level lead to competition distortion
within the Single market?

Would the Commission therefore agree that it is necessary for Community harmonisation for public
funding to cover these costs as an emergency measure to prevent them falling to producers and to prevent
any distortion of competition.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

Differences in the level of public support to cover the considerable costs resulting from this legislation can
lead to distortions of competition. In order to avoid such distortions, the creation of a level playing field
via some kind of harmonisation may be required. However, the granting of public support for these costs
is only one way towards such a level playing field. Due to budgetary constraints, it is difficult to imagine

C 205 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

additional financing from Community funds. Member States may not be in a position to provide additional
public funds as well. As far as existing Community support is concerned, in order to help the beef sector,
it should be pointed out that the Community currently contributes € 15 towards the costs of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) testing kits.

The Commission has contacted all Member States to get cost estimates concerning recent and forthcoming
legislation related to the fight against BSE, and to get information about the level of public support. This
information is currently being evaluated,
in order to identify more clearly where steps towards more
harmonization are needed.

(2002/C 205 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0123/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: The Commission and international fisheries agreements

The Community fisheries sector is gradually losing its fishing opportunities in third country waters,
something which shipowners and fishermen attribute to the Commission’s weak stance and failure to
devote sufficient attention to this matter, as well as the breakdown of various negotiations in regional
fisheries organisations.

Furthermore, at the ‘Valentin Paz-Andrade’ Fisheries Forum on 5 December 2001, an official from the
Directorate-General
fisheries
agreements is outmoded.

the idea some shipowners have of commercial

for Fisheries said that

What are the Commission’s views on international fisheries agreements? Does it not agree with the
conclusions of the Fisheries Council of 30 October 1997 in Luxembourg, which enshrined the principle
that fisheries agreements with third countries should be commercial agreements? Will the Commission
ease the fears of
this sector by striving to renew existing agreements and seek out new fishing
opportunities for the Community fleet?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

The Commission’s analysis of Community external relations in the fisheries sector is set out in its
Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy (1). Briefly, as the recent negotiations seem to
confirm,
the Commission feels that C after 25 years C the practice of buying fishing rights for
Community vessels to fish in third-country waters has run its course.

Wishing nevertheless to defend Community interests, the Commission proposes that the Community
should instead participate in a political, institutional, legal, economic and social process through which it
can both tangibly contribute towards establishing sustainable fishing in the waters of certain coastal states
and develop, in partnership with those countries’ authorities, a medium- or long-term strategy based on
shared and mutual benefit. Without forgetting the economic dimension of these future relations, the role
and tasks of each interested party should be focused on forming partnerships at the appropriate level
(national and/or regional) and establishing the instruments and conditions within which the Community
and its partners intend to continue their medium- and long-term relations in the fisheries sector with a
view to sustainability.