WRITTEN QUESTION E-3155/03 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Competition-distorting customs duties on fish imported from Norway to Denmark.
Date: 2003-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, Norway, competitiveness, customs duties, processing industry, restriction on competition, sea fish, supply

C 78 E/230

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

by more competition and less social responsibility, if the only quality of life scale used in the EU is the
OECD’s? That being so, should WISP (or similar EU quality of life indices) always complement the OECD’s
quality of life league table (or similar EU indices for measuring productivity) when quality of life is
measured in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Many separate but related factors contribute to the quality of life, and this makes defining and measuring
the ‘quality of life’ a complex and rather subjective matter.

The level of production of goods and services in a country (cid:1) measured as the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) (cid:1) is a measure of material well-being, which would generally be considered as an important
component of the overall quality of life. However, quality of life is clearly about more than material well-
being, and the Commission has never presented estimates of levels or growth in GDP as being equivalent
to a measure of the quality of life.

The question refers specifically to the Weighted Index of Social Progress (WISP). This is one of a number of
similar measures that have been developed in recent years to try to capture the broader aspects of quality
of life. Examples include the Environmental Sustainability Index and the Human Wellbeing Index. There
are two critical stages in the construction of these indices: first, a set of variables must be chosen, and
second, these must be aggregated to produce a single number, which is called the index of social progress,
or environmental sustainability, or human wellbeing, and so on, depending on the compiler of the index.

Both of these stages (cid:1) selecting the variables, and deciding how they are to be added together (cid:1) involve a
considerable degree of subjectivity, and this is a major drawback to all such synthetic indices. By changing
the set of variables, or the weighting method, different measures and thus different rankings of countries
may be calculated, so that it is questionable whether such indices are more robust measures of the quality
of life than conventional statistics.

Rather than trying to compress a multi-dimensional subject such as the quality of life into a single number,
it may be more appropriate to use a range of measures that reflect this multi-dimensionality and avoid the
subjectivity that is an inevitable weakness of index-based approaches. Indeed, this is the approach that
international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
and the United Nations have adopted to address issues related to sustainable development, by devising sets
of sustainable development indicators. Eurostat has adapted the United Nations set of indicators to Member
States (cid:1) see the publication ‘Measuring progress towards a sustainable Europe’ (cid:1) and is currently
developing a set of indicators that can be used to monitor progress in implementing the Union sustainable
development strategy.

This method has also been adopted to monitor the Lisbon strategy, for example, where the Commission
and the Council have agreed a set of structural indicators that relate to the various elements of the strategy,
and the Commission has developed a database containing additional data relevant to the strategy. In this
way, progress towards each of the Lisbon objectives is measured, allowing a balanced picture of overall
developments to be formed.

(2004/C 78 E/0233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3155/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject: Competition-distorting customs duties on fish imported from Norway to Denmark

The competitiveness of Danish firms in the fish processing industry is being hit by the EU’s customs
policy. The EU reference prices for raw herring are higher than the Norwegian prices. Danish firms are

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/231

consequently unable to buy Norwegian herring as cheaply as Norwegian firms can. In addition there is a
difference in the rates of customs duty: the duty is 15 % on raw fish but only 6 % on processed fish.

Despite the fact that the current rules were intended to protect firms in the EU, they are having a
disastrous effect on the competitiveness of Danish businesses.

Firms in Skagen and other towns in Jutland, which normally purchase considerable quantities of
Norwegian fish, are currently dismissing most of their employees. They are unable to purchase the
necessary quantities of herring within the EU.

Will the Commission please investigate ways of counteracting the harmful effect of these customs duties?

What opportunities does the Commission have to change this competition-distorting state of affairs,
whereby unprocessed herring imported to Denmark from Norway is subject to a 15 % customs duty, while
the duty on processed fish imported to Denmark from Norway is only 6 %?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 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 Danish processing industry. However, there are a
number of factors other than tariff rates which may have an impact on the competitiveness of the
processing industry. In this regard, it appears that the supply situation in certain Member States is related
more to the practice of Community fishing vessels landing their catches of herring in Norwegian ports
than to the present tariff situation. This practice is due to the geographical particularities of the fisheries on
Atlanto-Scandian herring in the Northeast Atlantic.

The Honourable Member will recall that the import duties for fishery products originating in Norway were
set as a result of an international agreement between the Community and that country. Therefore, the
Community cannot change these tariffs on an unilateral basis.

As for possible short-term measures, the Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a new multi-
annual tariff quota system for the period 2004 to 2006 in consultation with Member States. This proposal
will need to take into account not only the interests of the fish processing sector in the Community but
also those of other sectors having a direct interest in the harvest of pelagic fish stocks.

In addition to the above, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the improved stock
situation for North Sea herring. The emergency measures, to which this stock has been subject over the
past years, are now starting to pay off. Thus, the availability of herring in the Community can be expected
to substantially increase in the years to come, with a positive impact on the supplies of the Community’s
processing industry.

(2004/C 78 E/0234)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3160/03

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Authorisation for the construction of a landfill site in the prefecture of Ioannina

Through its decision No 364/22.8.2003 the region of Epirus gave a favourable opinion on the
implementation of the project to construct a landfill site in Geroplatanos-Phteri, in the municipality of
Kalpakion, Ioannina prefecture. A supplementary opinion (No 3989/1.10.2003) places the landfill site in
Kidonies, in the parish of Vassilikon, which falls within the municipality of Ano Pogoniou.