WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/03 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission. EU/Norway Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Date: 2003-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Chile, Faroes, Norway, agreement (EU), anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, fish farming

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/63

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Mozambique had no access to the Community’s sugar market before the ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA)
initiative. This initiative has, therefore, offered them new preferential export opportunities and has played
an important part in the revival of the sector after civil war and flood.

Mozambique will be able to export unlimited quantities of sugar to the Community from 2009.
Meanwhile, transitional arrangements apply: they participate in the EBA quota which increases year on
year by 15 % from 74 185 tonnes in 2001-2002 to 197 355 tonnes in 2008-2009. These transitional
arrangements were necessary to allow the Community to undertake the necessary internal adjustments
necessary to cope with increased EBA imports.

It would be inadvisable for the sugar sector to rely solely on access to one foreign market: for development
reasons, all export opportunities should be considered. Mozambique is thus starting to export to other
markets both within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region and to the United
States, which should further help Mozambican sugar farmers.

(2004/C 33 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: EU/Norway Anti-Dumping Agreement

If the Commission backs the decision by the Anti-Dumping Committee to abandon the EU/Norway
Agreement, will the Commission be prepared to monitor the situation immediately, especially with regard
to independent salmon farmers?

Would the Commission accept that if there is a marked deterioration in the livelihood of the independent
salmon farmers, then reimposing a ban on the dumping of salmon would have to be considered not just
on Norway, but also Chile and the Faroe Islands?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

On 20 December 2002, the Commission made disclosure to the parties concerned of the essential facts
and considerations on the basis of which it was proposed to terminate the review of the anti-dumping and
countervailing measures applicable to imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway and the
anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of the same product originating in Chile and the Faeroe
Islands without the application of trade defence measures.

In accordance with the relevant Community legislation, the parties concerned were given the opportunity
to make written submissions to the Commission on the substance of the proposal. The Commission also
sought
the opinion of Member States’ delegates to the Anti-dumping and Anti-subsidy Advisory
Committee regarding the proposal as it is required to do by the same Community legislation. The
opinions expressed by Member States’ delegates to the Committee and discussions taking place in that
body are confidential.

it should be made clear that the proposal as presented to the Committee concerned the
However,
termination of the existing measures applicable to imports of farmed Atlantic salmon from Norway and
not the so-called ‘Union/Norway Salmon Agreement.’ This agreement, which was signed in 1997 between
the Commission and the Norwegian Government and which came to an end on 28 February 2003,
provided amongst other things a forum for an exchange of views between the signatories on the state of
the market for salmon in the Community. The measures in place at the present time on the other hand,

C 33 E/64

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

including the system of price undertakings, do not depend upon the agreement. Consequently, the trade
defence measures applicable to Norwegian imports of farmed Atlantic salmon remain in place and will
continue to do so until a definitive decision is taken.

The issue of a system to monitor developments in the salmon market, should the application of the
measures on Norwegian imports not be extended, has been raised by a number of parties. The
Commission is currently considering the practicalities of such a system both in terms of its scope and of its
legal implications.

The Commission remains ready to investigate all cases where there is positive evidence of unfair trade
practices by third country exporters and to take action to redress injury suffered by Community producers
where this is justified. Therefore, if it is ultimately decided to repeal the existing measures applicable to
imports of farmed Atlantic salmon from Norway and not to impose measures on imports from Chile and
the Faeroe Islands, the independent salmon farmers to which the Honourable Member refers, will have the
possibility to present a substantiated complaint to the Commission in respect of some or all of these
imports, which shows, inter alia, that the circumstances on which the termination was based have changed
and that there is prima facie evidence of injurious dumping.

(2004/C 33 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Dredgers in Indonesia

On 26 July 2002 a number of dredgers, including three Belgian vessels, were stopped by the Indonesian
navy near Sumatra. They were apparently not carrying the correct papers. An accusation of theft of sand
was also made. The vessels were subsequently held under arrest.

On 9 October an Indonesian court fined each of the Belgian dredgers over EUR 3 000 for not having the
correct papers on board, but only copies. Following payment of the fines the vessels should have been
released. The judge makes no reference in his verdict to theft of sand. The fact is that there was no
question of theft. If too small an amount of sand extracted was stated, this is solely to be ascribed to the
local concession holders, who are in contact with the central authorities. That, however, is an internal
Indonesian problem. The Indonesian Government ignored the judgement and decided, regardless of the
judge, to demand damages of EUR 18,5 million as a condition for release. This sum amounts to 15 % of
the dredgers’ value. The Indonesian Government refers to compensation for the losses suffered by the
Indonesian population due to disadvantageous conditions in respect of sand extraction laid down by
previous governments. The dredgers have paid the sum and have since been released.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs?

If so, does the Commission consider that the Indonesian Government has acted in contravention of

2.
its obligations under the WTO?

Does the Commission consider that the Indonesian Government (wrongly) ignored the verdict of the

3.
Indonesian judge and thereby undermined the rule of law?

4.

If so, does the Commission intend to intervene with the Indonesian Government in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the issue concerning court proceedings in Indonesia and the impounding and
subsequent release of a number of dredgers, among them Belgian vessels.