WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Canned tuna from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia.
Date: 2003-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, cannery, import (EU), originating product, sea fish, veterinary inspection

C 70 E/108

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

(2004/C 70 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2475/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Burma

The EU’s sanctions against Burma have recently been extended, with an increase in the number of people
subject to a visa ban, and assets being frozen. Could the Council comment on whether these steps
represent a strengthening of the sanctions, and what impact these sanctions are expected to have on the
Burmese regime?

Reply

(5 December 2003)

1.
On 16 June 2003, the Council discussed recent developments in Burma/Myanmar and expressed its
continued grave concern over the events of 30 May and the deteriorating overall situation. The Council
urged the Burmese authorities to immediately release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as well as other members of
the National League for Democracy (NLD), and to re-open NLD offices and universities throughout the
country.

In order to re-launch a process of national reconciliation and transition to democracy in Burma/
2.
Myanmar, the Council urged the authorities to enter into a substantial and meaningful political dialogue
with the NLD as well as other political groups. The Council reiterated its call to Burma to respect its
promises to release all political prisoners and expressed its deep concern over the noted increase of
politically motivated arrests.

3.
In accordance with its commitment to react proportionately to developments in Burma/Myanmar
and in light of the serious deterioration of the situation in the country, the Council decided on 16 June
2003 to implement without delay the extended sanctions mentioned by the Honourable Member of
Parliament. Originally it had been envisaged to put them into force by October 2003.

The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to address also her question to the Commission

4.
which is currently assessing the impact of all existing sanctions on the Burmese regime.

(2004/C 70 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/03

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

Subject: Canned tuna from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia

(24 July 2003)

The production of some types of canned tuna from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia involves the
use of hydrolysed proteins to increase the drained weight of the product, a practice which might constitute
consumer fraud bearing in mind that Community processing firms producing the same types of canned
tuna in the EU do not use proteins as part of the production process.

Does the Commission not believe that the use of this protein in the production of the above canned tuna
and its subsequent import into the EU might constitute fraud both against consumers and the Community
industry?

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/109

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991, laying down the health conditions for the production and
the placing on the market of fishery products (1), states what treatments for fishery products are authorised
and the procedures to authorise new treatments.

The use of substances binding excess water in fishery products, such as hydrolysed proteins,
authorised under this Directive.

is not

It is up to the Member States, responsible for carrying out veterinary checks on importation, to check that
hydrolysed proteins are not present in fishery products imported from third countries and to take the
requisite measures (such as ordering the return of the consignment to its country of origin).

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

(2004/C 70 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2518/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Transatlantic cooperation on biodiversity conservation

On 25 June 2003 Canada, Mexico and the United States adopted a long-term strategy on North American
cooperation in the conservation of biodiversity. In the Communication ‘Biodiversity Action Plan for the
Conservation of Natural Resources’ (1), the Commission indicates that action needs to be taken to promote
better coordination between different initiatives in the international forums in the field of climate change,
ozone layer depletion and desertification to avoid duplication of efforts,
in particular with respect to
reporting procedures and to identify interactions between the CBD and activities under other existing
international agreements in order to optimise the opportunities for synergy.

Does the Commission agree with me that the decision by the NAFTA countries provides an excellent

1.
opportunity to strengthen transatlantic cooperation on biodiversity conservation?

2.

Can the Commission indicate if and how it intends to intensify transatlantic cooperation in this area?

Does the Commission intend to develop biodiversity indicators in cooperation with the NAFTA

3.
countries?

The NAFTA countries also adopted a resolution on the development of indicators of Children’s Health and
the Environment in North America.

4.

How does this resolution overlap with the European Environment and Health Strategy?

Does the Commission see room for transatlantic cooperation in developing indicators of children’s

5.
health and environment?

(1) COM(2001) 162 final.