WRITTEN QUESTION P-1531/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Importation of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines.
Date: 2003-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: GATT, Philippines, Thailand, food processing, import (EU), originating product, preserved product, sea fish, tariff preference, tariff quota

C 78 E/718

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The equipment for GMO analysis is widely available in the enforcement and private laboratories of
2.
different Member States. Protocols for detection of approved GMOs are also available, as indicated in the
Commission Recommendation of 25 January 2002 concerning a co-ordinated programme for the official
control of foodstuffs for 2002 (2). To facilitate detection, the proposed GM food and feed legislation will
require the notifier to provide a method as part of the authorisation procedure as well as to submit the
material for the production of certified reference materials.

3.
All Member States are understood to have sufficient instruments and methods available that meet
adequate standards. Moreover, the Commission operates the European Network of GMO Laboratories. The
network consists of more than 40 control
laboratories located in Member States and provides full
participation to Accession Countries. It is also interacting with all Union global trade partners. One of the
objectives is to facilitate the enforcement of the rules for labelling and traceability of GMOs in the food
chain.

(1) OJ C 113 E, 13.5.2003.
(2) OJ L 26, 30.1.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0766)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1531/03

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

(29 April 2003)

Subject: Importation of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

In November 2001, the EU, Thailand and the Philippines agreed to hold talks within the framework of the
WTO aimed at assessing the extent to which the preferential tariffs accorded to canned tuna originating
from the ACP countries was damaging the interests of Thailand and the Philippines. It proved impossible
to reach a solution acceptable to all parties and the European Community, Thailand and the Philippines
agreed to submit the matter to arbitration. On 20 December 2002, the arbitrator ruled that the European
Community should open a ‘most favoured nation’-type tariff quota of 25 000 tonnes for 2003 at an ad
valorem rate of duty of 12 %. The Commission agreed to the arbitrator’s proposal and has just presented a
proposal for a Council regulation on opening and providing for the administration of that tariff quota (1).
Article 4 of that proposal lays down that the provisions in force in the Community shall apply when
determining the origin of canned tuna qualifying for the tariff quota. Under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (2), goods whose production has involved more than one country shall be deemed to originate
in the country where they underwent their last substantial processing or working.

In the light of the Community legislation on rules of origin currently in force, could the Commission
indicate whether, under the regulation being adopted, canned tuna originating from Thailand and the
Philippines will be considered to have been undergone its last processing in those countries, regardless of
the origin of the raw materials processed?

Is the Commission aware that the application of these provisions on rules of origin could strip the
proposal for a regulation of its purpose, which is to grant preferential treatment solely to canned tuna
from Thailand and the Philippines and not to open up the EU market to tuna products coming from other
Asian countries such as Indonesia, etc.?

Is the Commission aware of the damage that the implementation of these rules of origin might occasion to
the EU tuna processing industry, which is located largely in Objective 1 areas that are highly dependent on
fishing? What measures has it adopted, or will it adopt, to prevent this situation from arising?

(1) COM(2003) 141 final.
(2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/719

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission confirms that, in accordance with the provisions of Community Customs Code (1) and in
particular Article 24, canned tuna produced in countries wishing to export to the Community within the
proposed quota, will bear the origin of the country in which it underwent its last, substantial, economically
justified processing, independently of the origin of the tuna fish used. In accordance with Article 26 of the
above-mentioned Regulation, Article 4.2 of the proposed Council Regulation to open the quota requires
that a certificate of origin be presented to the Community authorities to prove that the goods are eligible
for the part of the quota from which the benefit is requested.

The Commission would respectfully refer the Honourable Member to the proposed Regulation to open a
quota for canned tuna and, in particular, to Article 1 which states that the quota shall be open to goods
originating in any country. This is in accordance with General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
Article XIII, as is the division of the quota, based on past trade of the countries concerned, into the four
parts laid down in Article 3 of the proposed Regulation. The complainants, for their part, have signalled
their agreement to this division. The Honourable Member will note that canned tuna from Indonesia may
be exported to the amount of 11 % of the annual volume of the quota. This is because, in order to comply
with GATT Article XIII, Indonesia, as the third main supplier to the Community (i.e. an import share
≥ 10 %), is entitled to any increased most favoured nation (MFN) quota. The Commission considers it
unlikely, therefore, that either Thailand or Philippines would see any economic advantage by attempting to
the quota (52 % and 36 %
re-export canned tuna from Indonesia within the limited amounts of
respectively) from which they benefit.

The Commission is not of the opinion that damage will be occasioned to the Community tuna processing
industry by the implementation of the above-mentioned rules of origin. The Commission will of course
monitor the situation following the implementation of the quota and therefore does not intend to adopt
any measures at this stage.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.

(2004/C 78 E/0767)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1586/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Radioactive contamination from Sellafield

Will the Commission set out the means by which it is in a position to independently determine, as required
under Euratom Treaty Article 37, whether the reprocessing activities at Sellafield and La Hague respectively
are liable or not to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member
State?

(2004/C 78 E/0768)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Basic nuclear safety standards

Will the Commission set out the means by which it is able to guarantee that the Basic Safety Standards on
radiological protection are respected concerning the La Hague and Sellafield facilities?