WRITTEN QUESTION E-1371/02 by Sergio Berlato (UEN), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN),Roberta Angelilli (UEN), Roberto Bigliardo (UEN), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN),Antonio Mussa (UEN), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN)and Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. State of crisis in the European acquaculture sector.
Date: 2002-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU control, EU financing, Greece, aquaculture, fishery produce, restriction on competition, sea fish

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/63

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2002)

The Union has provided quota and tariff free access for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) under the
‘Everything But Arms’
it is
difficult to see how it can be further improved upon. The Commission does not therefore intend to re-
examine this scheme.

initiative. As this constitutes complete access to the Community market,

The Commission does acknowledge that there are other issues that must be tackled so that the Least
Developed Countries can take full advantage of this market access. Lack of trading capacity is one
bottleneck which needs to be overcome, which is why the Commission is focusing on stepping up its
efforts in the area of trade-related technical assistance. Lack of supply capacity is another serious obstacle
preventing many LDCs from benefiting from market access. The Commission seeks to address this issue
through the systematic integration or ‘mainstreaming’ of trade aspects into its development co-operation
and through support to developing countries’ own efforts to do likewise as regards the integration of trade
in their development strategies and polices.

Having said that, the Commission would encourage and invite all developed countries that have not done
so to mirror this initiative in order to strengthen and reinforce the prospects for the LDCs to benefit from
increased market access.

(2003/C 52 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1371/02

by Sergio Berlato (UEN), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN),
Roberta Angelilli (UEN), Roberto Bigliardo (UEN), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN),
Antonio Mussa (UEN), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN)
and Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: State of crisis in the European acquaculture sector

(14 May 2002)

Greek production of sea bass and gilthead seabream is continuing to cause serious damage to the whole
European industry, owing to both the Greek industry itself and inadequate supervision on the part of the
Commission and the Greek Government.

The four most important producer countries (France, Italy, Portugal and Spain) have asked the Commission
to consider the issue again in greater detail, in order to ensure just and fair competition among all the
Member States, since Greek producers have for some time been selling the product well below the cost
price.

Can the Commission take urgent action to ensure that the Greek Government complies and ensures
compliance with current legislation?

Can it introduce a strict monitoring system to ensure that public subsidies in Greece are used exclusively
for their original purpose?

Does it intend to draft a new Green Paper setting out a more realistic approach to the development of
acquaculture in Europe over the next ten years, by laying down parameters to encourage progressive but
healthy development?

What steps will it take to put a stop to a situation which is becoming more and more serious and alarming
for the whole European acquaculture industry?

C 52 E/64

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

The Commission has closely followed the issue of farmed sea bass and sea bream market prices in the
Union, there have not been any indications of violations of applicable Community regulations. The
Commission is keeping regular contacts with both national authorities of the Member States as well as
producers in order to have a clear view of the situation.

the existing regulation by the national authorities, which are responsible for

The financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) subsidies to aquaculture in Greece are granted in the
framework of
the
implementation and monitoring of the multi-annual plans for fisheries. The Commission has already
suggested to the Greek authorities the implementation of a computer-based system to monitor the
parameters of the farms producing sea bass and sea bream. The use of this system, that is currently under
development, may allow for reliable forecasts of future production thus avoiding overproduction.

The Commission has already stressed in the Green Paper (1) that it considers that the market has to be the
driving force of aquaculture development, and that it is questionable whether the Community should
continue to subsidise investments by private companies in production capacity for species where the
market is close to saturation. Future Community initiatives in favour of aquaculture development will be
taken along these lines.

The situation of the market for farmed sea bass and sea bream was discussed at the meeting of the
Management Committee for Fisheries Products on 9 April 2002 and at a special meeting between the
Commission and the Member States most concerned on 16 May 2002. None of these meetings has given a
clearer view of whether there is a structural crisis or whether problems currently encountered are of a
seasonal nature. In this respect, the Member States concerned committed to gather further information
with a view to carry out a more in-depth analysis of the situation of the market for these species.

(1) COM(2001) 135 final.

(2003/C 52 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1375/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Strategy for BSE in sheep

The following quotation is taken from European Report 2674 (10 April 2002).
‘On 5 April, the EU’s
Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) discussed the recent paper from the Stanley Prusiner team indicating
that certain skeletal muscles of scrapie-infected mice are infectious and may reproduce prions (proteins
which spread the disease in animals). The scientists concluded that this could not be directly applied to
BSE in cattle conditions.’ The scientists did, however, not explicitly exclude the possibility of infectious
skeletal muscles reproducing prions in cattle.

Does the Commission agree with the SSC that there is not enough evidence to take measures against
possible BSE in sheep?

In view of the presence of prions in mice muscles, is the Commission of the opinion that it should take
measures in line with the precautionary principle?

Does the Commission consider that this information should be communicated to the public? If so, what
has it done in this respect?

What action will the Commission take to ascertain the potential risks of BSE in sheep?