WRITTEN QUESTION P-3008/03 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Unequal conditions of competition for the fish processing industry in the EU Member States.
Date: 2003-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common tariff policy, competition, customs duties, fish, fishery product, processing industry, tariff quota

C 78 E/772

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0822)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3008/03

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Unequal conditions of competition for the fish processing industry in the EU Member States

The fish processing industry in the Northern EU Member States is completely dependent on having raw
materials available under the same conditions as its competitors outside the EU. The EU countries often do
not have sufficient access to raw materials in their own waters and are therefore forced to import them.
One raw material which is giving rise to particular concern is herring.

While the Norwegian processing industry has cheap access to herring because of the large herring stocks
in Norwegian waters, the Northern EU countries’ producers are forced to pay higher prices (cid:1) often an
additional duty of 15 % (cid:1) to have access to the same raw materials by importing them from none other
than Norway.

By reason of various preferential agreements, it has at the same time become easier for foreign producers
(cid:1) including Norwegian producers (cid:1) to supply the EU market with semi-finished and finished products.
On the other hand there is, as we have seen, unequal access to raw materials. This gives rise to unequal
conditions of competition.

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that the herring industry in the EU states can operate
under equal conditions of competition with the EU’s neighbouring countries (cid:1) including the herring
industry in Norway.

A flood of preferential agreements and customs quotas has undermined the structure of customs duties on
the import of fish and fisheries products, apparently without any benefit to anyone. As a result, the
Northern EU countries’ processing industry cannot obtain the raw materials it needs, while finished
products from selected countries have easy access to the EU’s market.

What does the Commission propose to do to promote a simpler and more transparent set of rules for
customs duties on imported fish and fishery products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the concerns which the Honourable Member expresses about the
situation of supplies of herring as raw material for the Community’s processing industry. In actual fact,
there is a need to maintain and, as appropriate, improve the competitiveness of the processing industry
throughout the Community with due regard to all relevant factors.

Over many years, motions to suspend the tariff for herring as raw material have formed the subject matter
of rather protracted discussions with Member States. Yet, diametrically opposed views on this have been
consistently held. Denmark’s repeated calls for far-reaching tariff suspensions always encountered stiff
opposition mainly from Ireland but also from the United Kingdom, both of whom argued with the
peculiarities of the fisheries on pelagic fish stocks, the dependency of their respective fishing communities
upon these fisheries and the principle of Community preference. This has resulted not in a simple and
clear set rules for customs duties but rather in a mix of measures (duty-free period, autonomous tariff
quota and a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) quota) designed to balance these conflicting
interests with each other.

Tariff concessions agreed with third countries may add to the complexity of applicable custom duties. Yet,
these regimes have a logic of their own. Thus, the tariff quotas agreed upon with Norway and Iceland in
the framework of European Economic Area (EEA) Enlargement negotiations have been shaped to take into
consideration the impending enlargement of the Union and the interests of the incoming new Member
States.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/773

In the wake of EEA Enlargement negotiations, there have already been renewed calls for complete tariff
suspensions for fresh herring and mackerel, on the one hand, and announcements of opposition to any
further tariff alleviation for the said products, on the other. It also appears that it is not so much the
present tariff situation, which exacerbates the supply needs of the processing industries of certain Member
States, but rather the practice of many Community fishing vessels to land their catches of herring into
Norwegian ports. This is due to the geographical particularities of the fisheries on Atlanto-Scandian
herring in the Northeast Atlantic. One might query whether tariff policy is the appropriate tool to cope
with that.

Another aspect of interest is a greatly improved stock situation of North Sea herring. The emergency
measures, to which this stock has been subject over many years, are now paying off. Thus, huge quantities
of herring will become available for the Community in the years to come. This might induce certain
Member States to argue that the quantities of herring now available to the Community are of such a
magnitude that adequate supplies of the Community’s processing industries are ensured.

It is clear that ongoing World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations on market access and tariffs will
lead to overall tariff reductions eventually. In the meantime, exploratory talks with Member States on a
new multi-annual tariff quota system for the period 2004 to 2006 to address short-term needs are under
way. The Commission approaches this with an open mind and hopes that this exploratory process will
yield results which would allow to come forward with operative proposals capable of mustering the widest
possible support from Member States.

(2004/C 78 E/0823)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3061/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Threat to the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ (No 537) from a road-building project to be

carried out with assistance from the European Structural Funds

In spring 2000 the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ was not notified to the Commission as a
single natural habitat, but rather, on the basis of scientific findings concerning the spread of the species in
need of protection (CJEC judgment of 7 November 2000, Case C-371/98 (1)), as two separate sites.
A roughly 50-metre-wide corridor runs through the middle of the protected area. The German Land
Brandenburg intends to use the corridor as the route of the northern section of the Falkensee by-pass
(L20). The decision to exclude the strip of land in question cannot be justified on nature conservancy
grounds,
in particular because this area forms, along with the FFH protected area ‘Spandauer Forst’
(No 3445-301), a natural whole.

1.

(a) Does the Commission share the view taken by the Brandenburg Land Government that the
decision to divide and thus dismember the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ is consistent with
the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) and that the excluded strip need not also be identified as a
protected area, however logical such a move would be on nature conservancy grounds? If so, why
does the Commission take the view that the by-pass must be routed through the protected area and
why, in its view, does the road-building project take priority over nature conservancy? If not, what
steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, in order to safeguard the protected status of the area
as a whole?

(b) Does the Commission share the view of the Brandenburg Land Government that the planned road will
have little impact on the neighbouring FFH protected areas ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer
Forst’?

If so, what arguments can it put forward to substantiate that view?