WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. CAP reform — Mediterranean produce.
Date: 2003-06-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Mediterranean agriculture, aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, cotton, hops, olive oil, reform of the CAP, sugar, tobacco

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/215

As the Commission has made clear on various occasions since it tabled its proposal, there is a clear legal
imperative to revise the effort limitation regime that was adopted in 1995, following the expiry of the
transitional access arrangements in the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal from 1985. Indeed, after
2002 the 1995 regime is in contradiction with primary law. It is therefore not a viable option to let the
1995 Regulations remain in force for a further 10 year period but these have to be replaced.

However, taking account of the resolution adopted by the Parliament and having listened to the arguments
put forward in this context, the Commission is now seeking to establish a biologically sensitive area within
the scope of the Western waters Regulation. This area would be subject to specific measures which will
take into account the views expressed by the Parliament.

As regards the Portuguese continental waters, it should be recalled that according to Article 17(1) of the
framework Regulation for the Common Fisheries Policy (3), a fundamental principle of this policy is that
Community fishing vessels have equal access to waters beyond 12 nautical miles off the baselines.

As a consequence of the 1985 Act of Accession for Spain and Portugal, ICES (4) area IXa was divided
between these two Member States according to their national boundaries. This was however clearly a
transitional arrangement, alongside other temporary arrangements for the integration of Portugal and
Spain into the Community, which now must come to an end. The separation between Spanish and
Portuguese waters beyond 12 nautical miles is clearly not in line with Article 17 (1) referred to earlier and
it simply cannot be permanently upheld within the Community to exclude access to waters under one
Member State’s jurisdiction for other Member States, neither legally nor politically. This is valid for all
Community waters, not only Portuguese waters. It should also be recalled that this approach has already
been accepted in the TAC and Quota Regulation for 2003, adopted by the Council in December 2002, in
which the corresponding separation of ICES area IXa was abolished.

If there are conservation problems appearing in the area in question,
they should be regulated at
Community level according to the ordinary procedures which are applied within the Common Fisheries
Policy. The Commission is always prepared to examine such claims and to take the necessary action.

(1) COM(2002) 739 final.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common

fisheries policy, OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of

fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.
ICES = International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

(4)

(2004/C 33 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: CAP reform (cid:1) Mediterranean produce

Recently, on 3 June, at the close of the European Parliament’s debate on the reform of the CAP, Mr Fischler
(Commissioner) gave an undertaking that Mediterranean produce would soon be entitled to the same
support as that for which other types of agricultural produce are eligible. This is a most interesting and
important statement.

The Commission:

(cid:1) would the Commission say what measures will flow from this granting of aid for Mediterranean

produce?

(cid:1) when, how and in respect of which products does the Commission intend to implement this new

policy?

C 33 E/216

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

At the meeting on 26 June 2003 of the Council of Agricultural Ministers in Luxembourg, the Commission
engaged itself to submit in autumn 2003 a communication on the reform of the common market
organisations for three major Mediterranean products, namely olive oil, tobacco and cotton, and to follow
that communication with legal proposals.

As in its July 2002 communication, the Commission intends to provide a long-term policy perspective for
these sectors in line with their present budgetary envelope and the new framework for agricultural
expenditure agreed at the Brussels European Council in October 2002, based on the objectives and the
approach of the reform agreed by the Council of Ministers at that same meeting in Luxembourg.

The Communication to the Council and the Parliament will contain a detailed presentation of the reform
proposal and its modalities of application for olive oil, cotton and tobacco. For sugar, there will be a
description of the various options and their impact. At the same time, the Commission will also consider
the adoption of a proposal for the reform of CMO for hops.

The relevant legal propositions for olive oil, cotton and tobacco will be presented to the Council and the
Parliament before the end of November 2003.

(2004/C 33 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Possible lifting of fish meal ban

As imported commodities have now been checked for MMBM (mammalian meat and bone meal) at the
time of entry into the EU for around two years, can the Commission give an account of any positive
findings since the introduction of the checks classified by commodity?

Further, as there is now also a new method of analysis which distinguishes fish meal and meat and bone
meal which has been ringtested with positive results, will the Commission review its position and consider
lifting the temporary ban on fish meal in ruminant diet?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

In accordance with point 2 in Annex I to Commission Decision 2001/9/EC (1), each consignment of
imported fishmeal shall be analysed to exclude the presence of mammalian proteins. Member States have
reported the result of 10 407 analyses on the presence of animal proteins in feed materials sampled in
2001 and 2002. The frequency of animal proteins prohibited by Council Decision 2000/766/EC (2) was
1,5 % in 2001 and 0,64 % in 2002. Separate data on the number of samples of fishmeal, and of the
frequency of mammalian proteins in fishmeal are not available. Since notifications for feed were
introduced in the Rapid Alert System in 2002, there has been one notification which informed on the
presence of mammalian proteins in fishmeal.

Fishmeal itself is not considered as a risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The reason for
banning fishmeal in feed is the control of the feed. In particular, the presence of fishmeal may hamper the
control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Results of a recent ring trial indicate that
50 % of the laboratories failed to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed containing
5 % of fishmeal with the official detection method. Research to improve the method is ongoing.