WRITTEN QUESTION E-2486/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Captive market in salmon.
Date: 2002-09-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Chile, EU market, Faroes, Norway, anti-dumping legislation, association agreement, import, minimum price, originating product, sea fish

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/25

Further information on Community lending activity can be found in the following reports published
regularly by the Commission:

(cid:1) Report from the Commission to the budgetary authority on guarantees covered by the general budget

(cid:1) situation at 31 December 2001 (1);

(cid:1) Report from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on the borrowing and lending

activities of the Community in 2000 (2).

(1) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/com/rpt/2002/com2002_0237fr01.pdf.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/com/rpt/2001/com2001_0435fr01.pdf.

(2003/C 161 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2486/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Captive market in salmon

The EC’s trading relations with third countries in the salmon sector are characterised by the defence of the
interests of a group of Community producers who enjoy a captive market for their products, at the
expense of the Community’s consumers, who have to pay artificially high prices for salmon from Norway,
the Faeroe Islands and Chile (the EU has recently signed an association agreement with the last-named
country). These producers now aim to prolong their privileged status by laying unfounded charges of
dumping on their third-country competitors and imposing tariffs on salmon from Chile and the Faeroe
Islands as a means of reducing the unpopularity of their products among consumers in the EC.

In what ways has the market been affected by the agreement signed by the Commission with Norway in
1997 (cid:1) valid for five years and due to expire on 1 July 2002 (cid:1) on minimum prices for imports of
Norwegian salmon? Can the Commission confirm that there will be no renewal of the minimum price
the interests of Community consumers by making salmon artificially
clause, which works against
expensive?

What action does the Commission intend to take to defend the interests of consumers in the Community
and allow them free access to salmon from Chile, the Faeroe Islands, etc, given that this would be in the
interests of competition and product quality?

Does the Commission not consider that the virtual restriction of the Community market to Scottish and
Irish producers has resulted in a prevalence of low-quality salmon in the Community, while Chilean
salmon, by contrast, is not affected environmental problems?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

As concerns the opening of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon
originating in Chile and the Faeroe Islands, it should first be recalled that any anti-dumping complaint
brought before the Commission has to include prima facie evidence of dumping by imports from third
countries, injury to the Community industry and of the causal link between the two. In addition, the
Commission is obliged to carry out a preliminary assessment of the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence
provided in the complaint and seek the opinion of the Advisory Committee composed of representatives
of the Member States before a proceeding is initiated. These measures are designed to ensure that only
legitimate complaints result in the opening of formal proceedings. All these conditions were fulfilled for
the opening of the above-mentioned anti-dumping proceeding therefore it cannot be said that the charges
by the Community industry of dumping were unfounded. It should also be noted there are no measures in
place against imports from either Chile or the Faeroe Islands since the investigation was initiated only in
July 2002.

The only trade defence measures currently in force in the Community for this product are those imposed
in 1997 on imports originating in Norway consisting of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties underpinned
by a system of minimum import price undertakings accepted from individual exporters. In parallel to these
measures, the so called ‘EU-Norway Salmon Agreement’ was signed in 1997 by the Commission and the
Norwegian authorities and provides for, inter alia, the levying of an export tax of 3 % by the Norwegian

C 161 E/26

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

government (which can be increased if export volumes exceed certain levels) and regular consultations
between both sides. It should be stressed that neither the measures (duties and undertakings) nor the
Salmon Agreement restrict the quantity of Atlantic salmon originating in Norway that can be imported
into the Community. Therefore, they do not create a captive market for the Community industry. Indeed,
statistics show that the total import volume into the Community of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in
various third countries represented around 70 % of the total Community market during the last five years.

In February 2002 after consultations with the Norwegian authorities concerning price developments for
salmon on Community market, the Commission, on its own initiative, initiated a review of the existing
measures. The duties and undertakings remain in force pending the outcome of this review, as will the
Salmon Agreement, which was extended by the mutual consent of the Norwegian government and the
Commission. Definitive findings are scheduled for next year.

The two above-mentioned investigations in which the Commission is currently engaged will both examine
if so, whether these have caused injury to the
whether unfair trade practices have occurred and,
Community industry.
If it is the conclusion of these investigations that trade defence measures are
warranted, proposals will be made as appropriate. In the case of Norway, the question of minimum import
prices would also be re-examined. It should be noted that measures cannot be applied where it is shown
that they would be contrary to the overall interest of the Community. The assessment as to whether the
Community interest calls for intervention has to based on an appreciation of the various interests of all
parties directly concerned, including those of the processing industry and consumers. However, it should
be recalled that it is not within the remit of anti-dumping proceedings to give judgements on the
comparative quality of salmon of different origins, nor to examine specific environmental aspects.

(2003/C 161 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Financial control 3: holding of a completely public debate, with the participation of independent

experts, on improving financial management

1. What place does the Commission see for views on financial management and financial control which
clash with its own? Does it seek to learn lessons from such conflicting views concerning how it can
improve its organisation, or does it regard the expression of such views as a hostile offensive which must
be repulsed with all the means at its disposal?

2. Where the existence of problems has been established, does the Commission seek to resolve them as
quickly as possible or does it prefer to conceal the problems, delaying a solution?

Can the Commission guarantee that,

3.
in future, the response to criticism by officials of financial
management and financial control will not be to transfer those concerned to another post or to dismiss
them, but to hold a public debate for the purpose of assessing the actual facts and to actively invite critical
officials, former officials and external experts to give their comments?

Can the Commission guarantee that the accountancy service, the Court of Auditors and OLAF will in
4.
future have complete freedom to act and will on no account meet with attempts to keep their contested
findings out of the public debate or to elevate, from the start, the Commission’s assessment to the status of
irrefutable final conclusions?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

1.
Reforms on financial management and control have been introduced under the Commission reform
White Paper of March 2000. The recasting of the Financial Regulation (1) was one such. These reforms are
the result of intense consultation and negotiation both within and outside the institution. These reform
proposals have been welcomed by Parliament, Council and Court of Auditors (2).